Experimental analysis of mating patterns in a clonal plant reveals contrasting modes of self‐pollination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hermaphrodite plants commonly practice self‐fertilization (selfing), but the mechanisms responsible vary depending on the mode of self‐pollination, pollinator behavior, and degree of clonality. Whether selfing occurs within (autogamy) or between flowers (geitonogamy) is of evolutionary significance because their fitness consequences differ. We used floral manipulations and genetic markers to determine the relative contribution of autogamy and within‐ versus between‐ramet geitonogamy to the selfing rate of the bumblebee‐pollinated, clonal herbAconitum kusnezoffii. Data on flowering phenology and bumblebee foraging were also collected to determine opportunities for different modes of self‐pollination. Autogamy accounted for only 12% of the selfing rate with the remainder resulting from geitonogamy. Whole‐ramet emasculation of clones with multiple ramets reduced selfing by 78%, indicating that within‐ramet geitonogamy contributed significantly (68%) to total selfing. Selfing of single‐ramet plants was 44% less than multiple‐ramet plants, indicating that the contribution of between‐ramet geitonogamy was substantially less (20%) than within‐ramet geitonogamy, probably because of bumblebee foraging behavior. Our results demonstrate for the first time in a clonal plant that within‐ramet geitonogamy is substantially greater than between‐ramet geitonogamy and highlight the importance of considering the influence of clonal architecture and pollinator foraging on modes of 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".