High Resource Overlap and a Consistently Generalised Pattern of Interactions in a Bat–Flower Network in a Seasonally Dry Landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollination is an ecosystem process that is crucial to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function. Bats are important pollinators in the tropics and are an integral part of complex plant-pollinator interaction networks. However, network analysis-based approaches are still scarce at the plant species and bat community levels. We used metabarcoding to identify plant taxa present in pollen from fur and faecal samples collected across 1 year from three nectar-feeding bat roosts in central Mexico. We calculated the frequency of occurrence of plant taxa and assembled a zoocentric network of bat-plant interactions. We constructed a year-long network, encompassing the entire period of sampling, two seasonal networks comprising the wet and dry seasons, and six individual networks from sampling at two-month intervals across the year. Four species of nectar-feeding bats interacted with 36 plant species from 16 families. We found highly generalised interaction patterns across networks corresponding with opportunistic feeding behaviour by bats, with little seasonal variation in network structure. There was high resource overlap between bat species, and bats visited a diverse range of plant species even during periods with a high abundance of particular resources in the landscape. The diverse diet of nectar-feeding bats emphasises the importance of floristically rich natural habitats in the landscape to provide reliable foraging resources year-round in a seasonally variable system. While a generalised network structure is thought to increase robustness, further research is necessary to understand how fluctuations in pollinator abundance and diversity in the face of land use and climate change may impact bat-flower networks and the consequences to plant communities.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".