Cryptic dioecy in <i>Actinidia polygama</i>: a test of the pollinator attraction hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female flowers of some dioecious species are known to develop stamens with sterile pollen, a sexual system known as cryptic dioecy. A convincing hypothesis explaining this phenomenon is that stamens in female flowers attract pollinators and so ensure seed production. However, because this hypothesis has rarely been tested experimentally, we tested it in a cryptically dioecious species, Actinidia polygama (Sieb. et Zucc.) Planch. ex Maxim. Our findings show that pollinators do not show a consistent preference based on the sex of the flowers, and that the removal of stamens from female flowers results in a significant reduction in the frequency of insect visits and fruit production. These results strongly support the pollinator attraction hypothesis in A. polygama. Given the evident role of stamens in female flowers in A. polygama reproduction, we discuss why cryptic dioecy is a rare phenomenon.Key words: Actinidia polygama, cryptic dioecy, pseudopollen, pollinator attraction, unisexual flowers.
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".