Quantitative importance of staminodes for female reproductive success in<i>Parnassia palustris</i>under contrasting environmental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The five sterile stamens, or staminodes, in Parnassia palustris act both as false and as true nectaries. They attract pollinators with their conspicuous, but non-rewarding tips, and also produce nectar at the base. We removed staminodes experimentally and compared pollinator visitation rate and duration and seed set in flowers with and without staminodes in two different populations. We also examined the relative importance of the staminode size to other plant traits. Finally, we bagged, emasculated, and supplementary cross-pollinated flowers to determine the pollination strategy and whether reproduction was limited by pollen availability. Flowers in both populations were highly dependent on pollinator visitation for maximum seed set. In one population pollinators primarily cross-pollinated flowers, whereas in the other the pollinators facilitated self-pollination. The staminodes caused increased pollinator visitation rate and duration to flowers in both populations. The staminodes increased female reproductive success, but only when pollen availability constrained female reproduction. Simple linear regression indicated a strong selection on staminode size, multiple regression suggested that selection on staminode size was mainly caused by correlation with other traits that affected female fitness.Key words: staminodes, insect activity, seed set, spatial variation, Parnassia palustris.
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) | 0.001 | 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".