The association between floral longevity and pollen removal, pollen receipt, and fruit production in flame azalea (<i>Rhododendron calendulaceum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral longevity is an important feature of a plant’s reproductive strategy. The goal of this study was to examine flower life span in the shrub flame azalea ( Rhododendron calendulaceum (Michx.) Torr.) to determine if it is fixed or plastic and to evaluate its association with pollen removal and receipt. Unmanipulated flowers remained open for ~10 days, while hand-pollinated flowers closed earlier (~7 days), indicating that these flowers are subject to pollination-induced senescence. In 2002, pollen removal was rapid (~70% of pollen was removed in the first 2 h of anthesis), while female function was a slower process (pollen accumulated on stigmas for up to 4 days). Fruit set was pollen limited, as 80% of hand-outcrossed flowers set fruit versus 35% of naturally pollinated flowers. This is likely the result of the pollen-collecting behavior of a common solitary bee, which did not contact stigmas. In sharp contrast, 2003 was a cooler and wetter spring, few flower visitors were observed, and virtually no pollen was removed from or deposited on stigmas after 48 h. These results suggest that the flower life span of flame azalea is a result of selection for increasing the probability of pollen receipt rather than pollen dispersal.
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".