Interspecific pollen transfer as a mechanism of competition: effect of <i>Castilleja</i> <i>linariaefolia</i> pollen on seed set of <i>Ipomopsis</i> <i>aggregata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated whether the deposition of Castilleja linariaefolia (Pursh) V. Grant pollen on flowers of Ipomopsis aggregata (Benth.) in DC. reduced I. aggregata's seed set. Ipomopsis flowers were hand-pollinated with either pure conspecific pollen (the control) or with C. linariaefolia pollen applied prior to, simultaneously with, or following conspecific pollen. Flowers that were simultaneously given C. linariaefolia and I. aggregata pollen received 39% less conspecific pollen than flowers in the control, but did not set fewer seeds per fruit. Flowers that were given C. linariaefolia pollen first received 30% less conspecific pollen and set 38% fewer seeds per fruit than the control. These results suggest that there is a priority effect; deposition of C. linariaefolia pollen on I. aggregata flowers results in competition, but only when C. linariaefolia pollen is deposited first. Unlike pollen of another competitor of I. aggregata (Delphinium nelsonii Greene. Per.), C. linariaefolia pollen caused competition without inducing an increased rate of stigma closure. Only 12% of I. aggregata's stigmas closed when C. linariaefolia pollen was deposited, and seed set of I. aggregata was reduced relative to the control whether their stigmas closed or not. The low rate at which C. linariaefolia pollen induces closure of I. aggregata's stigmas could be an adaptation to reduce the negative effects of competition.Key words: Castilleja linariaefolia, competition, hand pollination, hummingbirds, Ipomopsis aggregata, 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".