MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1946480914 · doi:10.1139/b2012-058

Flowering phenology and mimicry of the rattan <i>Calamus castaneus</i> (Arecaceae) in southern Thailand

2012· article· en· W1946480914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aroonrat Kidyoo, Doyle McKey

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPollinationInflorescenceMimicryCalamusPollenBotanyNectarStamenPopulationArecaceaePhenologyEcologyPalm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the insect-pollinated dioecious rattan Calamus castaneus Griff., nectar and pollen rewards, together with visual and olfactory cues, attract insects to male flowers. Pistillate flowers are apparently rewardless. Here, we aimed to clarify the mechanisms assuring visitation and pollination of female flowers. We studied features of flowering phenology and floral biology that affect pollination success of plants of both sexes. The results show that C. castaneus features a striking system of mimicry, quite different from those studied previously in other dioecious plants. The population of C. castaneus was not significantly male biased and no intersexual difference in number of inflorescences per plant was detected. However, male plants began their blossoming earlier and flowered longer than female plants. There was thus an excess of male floral display. This excess should increase the frequency of insect-mediated transport of pollen from male to female plants. Furthermore, on female plants each pistillate flower is accompanied by a sterile staminate flower that appears to contribute to insect attraction. Quite similar in morphology and function to fertile staminate flowers, they produce similar visual and olfactory cues, but less rewards (nectar but no pollen). C. castaneus thus ensures pollination success by intersexual phenological differences and by floral mimicry.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207