Mixed mating strategies and pollination by insects and wind in coconut palm ( <i>Cocos nucifera</i> L. (Arecaceae)): importance in production and selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Coconut is one of the most important tropical crops. It is threatened by Lethal yellowing disease. Production and selection by breeding require pollination, yet little is known of the pollination requirements and breeding system of this palm. 2 This study was carried out from 1999 to 2001 in coconut plantations represented by five coconut ecotypes commonly found in Mexico. It is the first study in the Neotropics on pollination and the breeding system of this palm. 3 Hymenoptera were the most numerous and diverse visitors to coconut flowers. The greatest period of insect abundance occurred during the rainy season (July to October). Insect abundance on the flowers correlated highly and positively with precipitation. 4 The abundance of visitors to pistillate flowers did not vary with season but there were significant differences between palm ecotypes; the most insect‐visited flowers were of the Atlantic Tall ecotype. 5 The introduced honeybee ( Apis mellifera ) had the most appropriate foraging behaviour, visiting both pistillate and staminate flowers. These insects were probably the most efficient pollinators as they carry pollen on their ventral surface. Ants were present on flowers day and night but had no effect on pollination. 6 Pollination experiments indicated a mixed mating strategy: self‐pollination by geitenogamy produced almost 19% of the fruit set, but cross‐pollination (xenogamy) was the most important contribution ( c . 30%). Anemophilous cross‐pollination only accounted for 10% of fruit set, whereas entomophily became the most important pollination mechanism under Yucatan conditions. 7 As coconut palm grows naturally on the oceanic strand in a wide variety of seasonal conditions of wind and rain, we suggest that they may have evolved pollination, breeding and mating systems that ensure fruit production under a wide variety of conditions, while maximizing the probability of cross‐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 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".