Getting hooked? Testing the function of anther spurs in Vaccinium myrtillus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flowers display remarkable diversity, much of which is shaped by interactions with pollinators. While various floral traits are considered adaptations to pollination, the function of many morphological features remains untested. In buzz-pollinated species, where bees use vibrations to extract pollen, anther morphology is diverse and can influence pollen removal and transfer. Poricidal anthers, common in these species, sometimes bear spur-like projections. These spurs are hypothesized to aid pollen release, but this has not been experimentally tested. Here, we investigated the function of anther spurs in Vaccinium myrtillus (Ericaceae). Using a laboratory setup, we conducted two complementary experiments: one where Bombus terrestris bumblebees foraged on flowers, and another applying 1 s artificial vibrations to mimic bee buzzes. We compared pollen release between flowers with intact anther spurs and those where spurs had been removed. Bumblebees produced vibrations during 90% of visits, irrespective of spur presence. Buzzing visits were shorter (21.70 ± 24 s; mean ± SD) and removed more pollen (60 ± 29%) than non-buzzing visits, which were three times longer (63.79 ± 70.45 s) but removed 23 ± 43% of pollen. Artificial 1 s buzzes removed an average of 23% of pollen. Spur removal increased pollen release in both the bee (54% to 60%) and the artificial buzzing experiment (18% to 28%). Our results suggest that anther spurs in V. myrtillus potentially act as a pollen-dispensing mechanism, but this effect depends on bee behaviour and visit duration. Further studies could explore other roles the spur has in interactions with non-buzzing visitors, such as regulating pollen release when visitors collect nectar.
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".