The Reproductive Biology and Reproductive Success of Pterocarpus macrocarpus Kurz<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The reproductive biology of Pterocarpus macrocarpus Kurz (pradu) was studied in 37‐year‐old plantation trees in Thailand to determine the causes of seed and fruit loss. Trees flowered at the end of March or early in April at the end of the hot dry season and start of the rainy season. Flowering occurred over about a one‐month period. Fruits developed over the next six months during the rainy season and matured at the start of the cool dry season in October and November. Phenology was similar in the four trees that were studied in detail. Racemes averaged 30 flowers each and each raceme was receptive for several days, although each flower was only receptive for one day. After pollination, floral parts were shed over several days and fruits began to develop. Pradu is entomopholous but its insect pollinators were not identified. The stigma is covered by hairs and a secretion is produced. A high proportion of flowers were pollinated. Then, there was a rapid loss of flowers and young fruits. These observations and earlier genetic studies indicate the probability of a high level of self‐incompatibility in this predominantly outbreeding species. Pradu may have a very late‐acting self‐incompatibility mechanism found in many other hardwoods. The zygote remains quiescent for six weeks as the endosperm develops. During this time most of the ovules and fruits abort, suggesting resource allocation preferentially to cross‐pollinated ovules. Pradu has a high reproductive potential but a low preemergence reproductive success (0.8), which is common for many hardwood species. The major cause of the low reproductive success was fruit loss during early development. Fruit production may be enhanced by increased cross‐pollination among unrelated parent trees. This may be accomplished in seed orchards and seed production areas by the introduction of additional insect pollinators that travel greater distances between trees and by the relatively close spacing of unrelated parent trees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".