Floral nectary structure and nectar chemical composition of some species from Robinson Crusoe Island (Chile)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral nectary structure and nectar composition of 12 species, including 11 endemics, are reported from Robinson Crusoe Island (Juan Fernández Archipelago, Chile). These species are mostly hummingbird pollinated. Nectary morphology follows the general pattern within each of the families, suggesting it is an ancestral feature. The mean nectar concentration (± SD) as a percentage of weight (weight/total weight of solution) was 28.3 ± 20.7. Sucrose, fructose, and glucose were identified in most samples. In Nicotiana cordifolia, an unknown monosaccharide was also detected. When more than one sample per species was examined, there was usually variability in sugar ratios. Statistical tests indicated that population size does not influence this variability. However, there were differences when the pollinator type was compared, with a trend of a higher sucrose proportion and a lower coefficient of variation of sucrose in the species pollinated by hummingbirds. This would indicate a specialization in the nectar composition of the hummingbird-pollinated species. Cuminia eriantha, N. cordifolia, and Rhaphithamnus venustus also possess amino acids in their nectar. In the non-hummingbird-pollinated species, the presence of nectaries and nectar serves as an indication of the ancestral pollination system of the first colonizers rather than the current condition, which is wind pollination or self-compatibility for most of the species. Thus, the presence of nectar in flowers does not necessarily indicate extant biotic pollination.Key words: angiosperms, Robinson Crusoe Island, nectary structure, nectar sugar composition, sugar concentration, hummingbird 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".