Distance between pollen donor and recipient influences fruiting success in slickspot peppergrass, <i>Lepidium papilliferum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant populations are often spatially structured owing to limited dispersal of pollen and seed. Mating between neighboring individuals in such populations often leads to reduced reproductive performance relative to matings between distant individuals. This response, which may be a result of inbreeding depression or prezygotic mating barriers, was investigated for slickspot peppergrass, Lepidium papilliferum L. (Brassicaceae), a rare insect-pollinated mustard endemic to sagebrushsteppe habitat in southwestern Idaho. Through hand pollination experiments we found that individual plants receiving pollen from distant sources (75100 m and 6.520 km away) had significantly higher percent fruit sets than those relying on pollen from neighboring plants (<1 m away). Self pollinated plants produced little or no fruit. These results suggest that L. papilliferum relies primarily, if not exclusively, on outcrossed pollination, and that its populations are spatially structured. Conservation efforts should therefore strive to protect sufficiently large areas of suitable habitat to ensure maintenance of genetic diversity and preserve or enhance connectivity between populations.Key words: Brassicaceae, inbreeding, outbreeding, population spatial structure, rare species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".