Nectary ultrastructure and secretory modes in three species of <i>Tillandsia</i> (Bromeliaceae) that have different pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The floral nectaries of three Tillandsia L. spp. having different pollinators were investigated with transmission electron microscopy (TEM) to describe the previously unstudied ultrastructure of the nectar-producing tissues (primarily the epidermis) and also to determine if any differences in the ultrastructural features could be correlated to pollination mode. We determined that there were variations in nectaries among the three species, and that these may be linked to pollinator choice. Tillandsia seleriana Mez, which has a strict relationship with ants, had a nectary epithelium characterized by abundant dictyosomes and endoplasmic reticulum (ER), and a final degeneration stage possibly leading to holocrine secretion. The presence of protein crystals in epithelial plastids was correlated to a nectar enriched with amino acids and proteins, likely functioning to provide a protein-enriched diet and possibly defence against pathogens. Epithelial cells of the hummingbird-pollinated Tillandsia juncea (Ruiz et Pav.) Poir. nectary displayed cell wall ingrowths and dictyosomes and also contained cytoplasmic lipid droplets and protein crystals within plastids, both of which would enrich the nectar for hummingbirds. The nectary epithelium and the parenchyma of bat-pollinated Tillandsia grandis Schltdl. possessed a few cubic protein crystals in the plastids and its secretion product appeared electron transparent.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".