Constructing more comprehensive pollination networks: integrating diurnal and nocturnal pollen data with visitation in a subalpine wetland community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Sampling for describing plant-pollinator interaction networks has been performed using techniques that either focus on the plants (with flower-visit data) or the animals (with analyzing pollen on the body surface of flower visitors). The differences in the structure of the networks obtained using these methods likely influences our understanding of the contribution of nocturnal pollinators, yet this key finding has yet to be the focus of study. Methods: In this study, we conducted an intensive diurnal field survey in the subalpine meadows of the Dajiuhu Wetland and supplemented the data with an analysis of diurnal and nocturnal pollen data to examine the changes in pollination networks. Results: We observed 41 plant and 154 pollinator species, corresponding to 665 specific interactions. Visitation and pollen analyses showed significant differences in the composition and interaction between network plants and pollinators, resulting in important structural changes in the network. Given that the diurnal pollen data showed new links that were preferentially attached to highly connected nodes, the level of asymmetric specialization did not decrease; however, nestedness increased 1.3-fold, and mean pollinator connectivity from 3.1 to 5.1. As the behaviors of nocturnal pollinators tended to be more specialized, the inclusion of nocturnal pollen data led to an increase in the number of extreme-specialist pollinator species. Consequently, nestedness decreased 0.8-fold, but mean plant connectivity went from 14.2 to 16.2. Discussion: These findings suggest that the structure of pollination networks is influenced by the sampling methods and the level of detail of the investigation. Our study has strong implications for the development of monitoring schemes for plant-pollinator interactions. Due to the practical difficulties of nocturnal field visitation, when conducting research, combining diurnal field visitation with both diurnal and nocturnal pollen analyses is the most convenient and realistic method to capture the full complexity of these networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".