Microclimatic-induced fluctuations in the flower and pollen production rate of olive trees (<i>Olea europaea</i>L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possible impact of altitude and the related microclimatic conditions on the total production of fruiting branches, inflorescences, flowers and pollen grains of olive trees Olea europaea was analysed. A total of 90 Picual cultivar trees, the most extensive olive cultivar in the Iberian Peninsula, were studied for a three-year period (2007–2009). The study shows that production of flowers and pollen grains in a cultivar of the olive tree varies according to the microclimate. Our study also indicates that the olive trees frequently can have up to half a million flowers per tree. Moreover, the total flower production differs between years and study areas. In the Picual cultivar, the average production of pollen grains per anther is usually more than 60 000 grains. The total production of pollen per tree is around 72 000 million on average. The most favourable microclimatic conditions for reproduction in olive trees are found in years and olive growing areas with low temperature and high precipitation records during the months prior to flowering of the olive trees. We hypothesise that olive trees tend to increase their pollen production rate as altitude increases, which can be interpreted as a reproductive strategy to ensure fertilisation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".