MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flowering phenology and reproductive biology of Drosera anglica(Droseraceae)

2005· article· en· W2037465680 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gillian L. Murza, Arthur R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueBotanical Journal of the Linnean Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPollinationPhenologyInflorescenceBotanyAnthesisRacemeHand-pollinationPollinatorReproductive successOutcrossingEcologyPopulationPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanical Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207