Flower-visiting lizards as key ecological actors for an endemic and critically endangered plant in the Canary Islands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oceanic islands are places where biological assemblages are relatively simple, as compared to the mainland. On islands, however, pollinator assemblages may to be composed of a taxonomically disparate group of organisms (e.g. insects, lizards, and birds), some of them with opportunistic nectar-feeding behaviour. Here we investigated some components of pollination effectiveness of Lotus maculatus (Fabaceae), an endangered Canary Islands endemic. In a flower exclusion experiment, we bagged flowers and compared their subsequent fruit and seed set to that of control flowers. Number of interactions with vertebrate and invertebrate flower visitors was counted and it was recorded whether interactions were legitimate (potentially pollinating) or non-legitimate (nectar robbing). Additionally, we estimated pollen loads on lizards and looked for any relationship between reproductive success of individual plants and number of visits made by the top three flower-visiting species (in terms of both frequency of occurrence at censuses and number of floral visits). Bagged flowers fruited less and with fewer seeds than control flowers. The only observed flower-visiting vertebrate was the Tenerife lizard Gallotia galloti, whose interactions were always legitimate and with around a half of captured individuals carrying pollen grains. The most frequent flower-visiting insect was the honeybee Apis mellifera followed by the solitary bee Lasioglossum arctifrons. The honeybee, however, was only a nectar robber, and the solitary bee was not an effective pollinator, but rather a pollen gatherer. Fruit set by individual plants was positively related only to frequency of visits by the lizard. Thus, the lizard seems to play a key role in the conservation management of L. maculatus.
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 | 0.001 | 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".