Pollination and Breeding System of Lowbush Blueberries, <em>Vaccinium angustifolium</em> Ait. and <em>V. myrtilloides</em> Michx. (Ericacaeae), in the Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breeding systems and pollination requirements of two wild lowbush blueberries, Vaccinium angustifolium and V. myrtilloides, in the Canadian boreal forest in the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve, Ontario, were tested. Fruit production, size and seediness were significantly higher in samples exposed to natural pollination than in those cross- or self-pollinated by hand. There were no significant differences among artificial treatments (variously hand-pollinated and bagged) except when cross-pollination (xenogamy) was done by insect pins. In V. angustifolium, the density of flowering varied with forest age (canopy closure). It was most in open areas and least in the sites with the most mature forest. Although fruit-set and seediness varied among forest habitats of different ages, there were no significant differences between sites in forests of different ages. Thus, pollination seems to be similarly effective no matter the age of the forest. In both species, fruit-set in 1992, which had severe June frosts, was markedly poorer than that in 1993 when the flowers suffered little frost damage. The combined number of complete and incomplete seeds from the fruit among the breeding and pollination systems tested were similar; however, the ratio of complete seeds to total seeds was greater from cross-pollinated than from self-pollinated flowers. Our observations indicate that there is little natural fruit-set without insect-mediated cross-pollination and that cross-pollination provides much better fruit and seed-set than does self-pollination.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".