Pollinator intraspecific body size variation and sociality influence their interactions with plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species morphological and behavioural traits are key determinants of which pollinator species interact with which plant species. However, individuals within species are not identical in their traits and this diversity could help us understand plant–pollinator interaction patterns. Using three independent data sets, we assessed whether bee intraspecific body size variation (ITV) and sociality influenced pollinator interaction specialisation, intraspecific niche partitioning, centrality in the interaction network and phylogenetic diversity of the plants visited. We found that solitary pollinators were more specialised in their interactions with plants and had lower intraspecific niche partitioning compared to social pollinators. Furthermore, solitary pollinators with higher ITV had higher centrality in the network and visited a higher phylogenetic diversity of plants compared to solitary species with lower ITV, whereas the opposite pattern emerged for social pollinators. Pollinator ITV did not differ between social and solitary bee species. Our findings show that the effect of pollinator body size variation on plant–pollinator interactions depends on pollinator species sociality. Specifically, solitary pollinators with higher ITV and social pollinators with lower ITV seem to be the most important contributors to maintaining the evolutionary diversity of the plant community, and also the species with the largest potential to affect (via cascade effects) the entire plant–pollinator network. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".