The differential effect of updrafts, downdrafts and horizontal winds on the seed abscission of Tragopogon dubius
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. While it is well known that many plant species enhance the dispersal of seeds by wind via traits such as lift-promoting wings and drag-producing fibres, we hypothesized that natural selection would also increase dispersal capacity through the evolution of mechanisms that promoted abscission by updrafts rather than downdrafts. 2. An experiment with the cosmopolitan weed, Tragopogon dubius, showed that a combination of simple morphological traits and achene orientation made updrafts from three to five times more likely than downdrafts to abscise a seed over the vertical wind speed range of 0·2–0·5 m s−1. (Abscission will not occur at speeds lower than about 0·2 m s−1 while vertical speeds >0·5 m s−1 near ground level would be extremely rare.) Horizontal winds were even more effective than updrafts at abscising seeds at any wind speed. 3. We speculate that mechanisms causing an updraft abscission bias are quite common and will eventually be seen as a crucial component of long distance seed movement for almost all wind-dispersed species.
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".