Incidence of geitonogamy differs between two populations in the hawkmoth-pollinated <i>Platanthera bifolia</i> (Orchidaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimated geitonogamy in individuals with different inflorescence sizes in a small (100–200 flowering individuals) and a large population (>700 flowering individuals) of the self-compatible, moth-pollinated orchid Platanthera bifolia (L.) L. C. Rich. (Orchidaceae). Geitonogamy was estimated as the percent reduction in pollen receipt by emasculated compared with control plants over seven nights. Geitonogamy in the small population was 23% and 38% during 2 years, respectively. In contrast, no geitonogamy was detected during a single flowering season in the large population. Geitonogamy did not vary with inflorescence size and emasculation had no impact on fruit set. The difference in geitonogamy between the populations in the present study may be related to pollinator abundance and behaviour. We suggest that incidence of geitonogamy will be higher if the pollinator carries smaller pollen loads when arriving at a plant because there will be a smaller fraction of cross-pollen carried after visiting one flower. Geitonogamy may be influenced by available number of mates, pollen load size, pollinator behaviour, and pollen carryover.Key words: geitonogamy, population size, inflorescence size, pollen-limitation, pollen carryover, self-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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".