Flowering phenology and reproductive biology of Drosera anglica(Droseraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by the sparse knowledge of the reproductive biology of carnivorous plants, compared with studies of their trapping habits, we investigated the flowering phenology and pollination biology of Drosera anglica Huds. in two fens in mid-western Canada. Seed set and germination were used to compare the effectiveness of a series of pollination treatments, including single insect visits to virgin flowers. Flowers opened during mid-morning but closed by early afternoon, and exhibited pseudo-cleistogamic behaviour in cool, overcast weather. D. anglica was found to be self-compatible, and able to self-pollinate and self-fertilize. Geitonogamy was an uncommon mode of self-reproduction because plants typically possessed a lone inflorescence upon which a single, short-lived flower opened, a few days before the next bud reached anthesis. Insect visits to the fragrance-lacking, nectarless flowers, chiefly by flies (Diptera: Syrphidae), were infrequent (one visit per 1 h 40 min of observation), and the low frequency of seed set and low numbers of seeds per fruit in pollination treatments involving insects, suggest the species does not rely on insects to effect pollination. Self-pollination, with or without the aid of a vector (insects, wind) was as effective as natural pollination; ultimately, autogamy is chiefly responsible for natural seed set. Thus, the species exhibits characteristics of facultative autogamy.
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 | 0.001 | 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".