Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development and function of the pollination mechanism were studied in Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex J. Forbes growing in clonal seed orchards. Two adaxial ovules developed on each scale after dormancy and each ovule formed a funnel-like integument tip with a nucellus at the base of the shallow funnel. At receptivity, the seed cones were erect and the ovules inverted. No pollination drop was observed in fresh specimens but lipid microdrops were secreted on the rim and inner surface of the funnel. Water applied as spray beaded on all cone surfaces except where microdrops were present. Surfaces of the cone were observed using scanning electron microscopy to determine the presence and ultrastructure of the waxy cuticle. All surfaces that were not wettable with water were covered with epicuticular wax. Pollen did not adhere firmly to cone surfaces having epicuticular wax but adhered to the microdrops on the funnel. Drops of water picked up pollen as they moved over the waxy surfaces toward the cone axis. There, the inverted ovules were arranged in a tight helix around the cone axis. Beads of water, often containing pollen, settled on the scale surface just below the funnels and then touched and wetted the inside of the funnels, forming a column of water from the scale surface below to the funnel above. The saccate, buoyant pollen then floated up and into the funnel. Experiments were done to determine the effect of pollen application on pollen uptake into the ovule: without water, with water applied before or after pollen was applied, or as a pollenwater mix. Results support the hypothesis that A. amabilis, and likely other Abies species, lacks a conspicuous pollination drop and water as rain or dew substitutes for a pollination drop.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".