MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018354608 · doi:10.1515/bot.2011.062

Reproductive biology of a natural mangrove hybrid <i>Rhizophora annamalayana</i> and its parent species (<i>R. apiculata</i> and <i>R. mucronata</i>) (Rhizophoraceae)

2011· article· en· W2018354608 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kavitha Seetharaman, K. Kathiresan

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanica Marina · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsRhizophora mucronataBiologyPollenAnthesisMangroveBotanyRhizophoraceaeBruguieraRhizophoraPollinationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rhizophora annamalayana is a natural mangrove hybrid with a rare seed set; the species is fast disappearing. We investigated possible causes of rare fruit set and explored ways of overcoming reproductive difficulties in this mangrove. Flowers open in the early morning in the hybrid and its parent species. Anthers dehisced after flower opening only in Rhizophora mucronata and Rhizophora apiculata. Anthesis and anther dehiscence took up to 5 days in all three species. Stigma receptivity peaked during anthesis; receptivity was lost within 8 h in R. annamalayana and R. mucronata. In R. apiculata, anthesis occurred inside the flowers, confirming that cleiostogamy occurred. Pollen of R. mucronata was 100% viable. Viability was 53% in R. apiculata. In R. annamalayana, only 3% of pollen was viable. R. mucronata flowers offered pollen and nectar to visitors, which were mainly Lucilia caesar (flies, bees, ants, etc.). Pollinators of R. annamalayana were restricted to Monobia quadridens, Vespa tropica and Ocybadistes walkeri. R. annamalayana reproduced by cross-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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanica MarinaSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207