Specialization in plant–pollinator networks: insights from local-scale interactions in Glenbow Ranch Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The occurrence and frequency of plant–pollinator interactions are acknowledged to be a function of multiple factors, including the spatio-temporal distribution of species. The study of pollination specialization by examining network properties and more recently incorporating predictors of pairwise interactions is emerging as a useful framework, yet integrated datasets combining network structure, habitat disturbance, and phylogenetic information are still scarce. Results We found that plant–pollinator interactions in a grassland ecosystem in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains are not randomly distributed and that high levels of reciprocal specialization are generated by biological constraints, such as floral symmetry, pollinator size and pollinator sociality, because these traits lead to morphological or phenological mismatching between interacting species. We also detected that landscape degradation was associated with differences in the network topology, but the interaction webs still maintained a consistently higher number of reciprocal specialization cases than expected. Evidence for the reciprocal evolutionary dependence in visitors (e.g., related pollinators visiting related plants) were weak in this study system, however we identified key species joining clustered units. Conclusions Our results indicate that the conserved links with keystone species may provide the foundation for generating local reciprocal specialization. From the general topology of the networks, plant–pollinators interactions in sites with disturbance consisted of generalized nodes connecting modules (i.e., hub and numerous connectors). Vice versa, interactions in less disturbed sites consisted of more specialized and symmetrical connections.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".