Luffa Cylindrica (L.) As Potential Foraging Source For Insect Pollinators During Post Monsoon Season – A Study In Gangetic Plain Of West Bengal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollination is an important ecosystem service and insects play the most vital role of its. Insect pollinators need good foraging resources all year long to survive, which are provided by both wild and cultivated plants. However, although being crucial for pollinator survival during scarcity, these wild plants receive little attention. Present study had been carried out in Gangetic plain of West Bengal to document the potentiality of the wild creeping plant, Luffa cylindrica L. as foraging resource for insect pollinators during the post monsoon season, when flowering in major trees is sparse. Active netting explore diversity of flower visitors, while palynological study confirms the pollen foraging activity of two reared honey bees, Apis mellifera L. and Apis cerana indica F. on the creeper. Insects belonged to orders viz. Hymenoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera and Coleoptera were found to visit. Hymenopterans were the major insect visitors comprising 66.34% of total. Palynological study revealed that Apis mellifera and Apis cerana indica togetherly visit 17 and 16 plant species for pollen collection during the study months. In October, Luffa cylindrica contributed 10.53% and 11.27% of total pollen taxa foraged by Apis mellifera and Apis cerana indica respectively and grouped as important minor pollen for the honey bees. However, in the month of November it contributed 11.84% and 9.88% of total respectively. Being a creeper, however, these are not given much protection and are often weeded out, which can have a negative impact on native pollinator populations foraging on the crops.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".