The effect of bird and bee visitation on pollination and reproductive success in <i>Phormium tenax</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To study how pollinator composition and abundance influence reproduction of Phormium tenax , we compared pollen deposition by bees and birds to unvisited flowers, and plant reproductive success and outcrossing rates in populations on island and mainland sites that vary in bird abundance. Bees deposited pollen on stigmas if stigmas were close to the anthers but deposited little pollen on stigmas of emasculated flowers, suggesting that they are largely depositing self pollen. Birds deposit pollen on both intact and emasculated flowers with well‐exserted stigmas, suggesting they are depositing more outcross pollen. High frequencies of bird claw marks on inflorescences were associated with high fruit set, but not seed set. Seed set and seed outcrossing rates were positively correlated with the number of unique maternal allozyme genotypes in a population and seedlings also showed higher outcrossing rates than seeds, suggesting that genetic diversity, selfing and inbreeding depression limit reproductive success. These results highlight the interplay of pollination and breeding systems in determining plant reproductive success.
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".