Demand‐driven resource investment in annual seed production by a perennial angiosperm precludes resource limitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The limits on annual seed production have long been characterized as restriction by either pollination success or resource provision to seed development. This expected dichotomy between pollen and resource limitation is based on the assumption that reproductive resources are fixed, which is reasonable for semelparous species. In contrast, iteroparity can ease the constraints on reproductive output per breeding season, if resources can be either mobilized from past storage or borrowed against future performance. For perennial plants, these options allow enhanced reproductive investment in response to unusually good pollination, so that annual seed production may not be pollen or resource limited. We assessed demand-governed reproductive investment by manipulating both resource supply capacity (partial defoliation) and resource demand (pollination quality: fully self-pollination, fully cross-pollination, or combinations of partial self- and cross-pollination within the inflorescence) for a forest herb, Stenanthium occidentale, which is subject to strong pre-dispersal inbreeding depression. Insensitivity to partial defoliation indicated that reproductive output was not source regulated. Instead, demand by developing seeds governs resource distribution, as demonstrated by elevated photosynthate translocation to fruits on fully cross-pollinated plants and the ability of completely defoliated plants to produce seeds. Such contingent resource allocation eliminates a simple dichotomy between pollen receipt and resource availability as limits on annual seed production. Instead, such flexible reproductive investment allows iteroparous perennials to participate maximally in current reproduction (as determined by ovule production) following superior pollination, or to conserve resources for future reproduction following poor 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".