Pollen performance and male fitness in an anemophilous, monoecious tree, <i>Betula pendula</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Betula pendula Roth clones were examined to study the relationship between pollen grain size and pollen tube growth rate and pollen and seed performance. Two hypotheses were tested: (i) pollen donors with larger pollen grains have faster growing pollen tubes and (ii) maternal plants produce more seeds when inflorescences have been pollinated by pollen from donors with fast pollen tube growth. Pollen from 15 plants was collected, and pollen grain sizes and pollen tube growth rates were studied in vitro. Eight maternal clones were pollinated by pollen from seven paternal clones, pollen tube growth rates of the pollen donors were measured on each maternal plant, and the number and mass of the resulting seeds were analysed. There was no correlation between pollen grain size and pollen tube growth rate in vitro. Also, there was no relationship between pollen tube growth rate and the number of produced or aborted seeds. Thus, the hypothesis that larger pollen grains would have longer pollen tubes was not supported by the present study. The results of the present study do not support the idea that pollen donors with fast pollen tube growth should sire more and better seeds.Key words: Betula pendula, female choice, nonrandom abortion, pollen competition, sexual selection.
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".