MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045895586 · doi:10.1139/b03-003

The beneficial effect of ants on the reproductive success of <i>Dyckia floribunda</i> (Bromeliaceae), an extrafloral nectary plant

2003· article· en· W2045895586 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José L. Vesprini, Leonardo Galetto, Gabriel Bernardello

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUniversidad Nacional de La PlataUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaAgencia Córdoba CienciaUniversidad Nacional de Rosario
KeywordsMyrmecophyteNectarBromeliaceaeMutualism (biology)BiologyPerennial plantBotanyInflorescencePollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyckia floribunda is a perennial herb from the Argentinian Chaco with extrafloral nectaries. Ants visited these nectaries while patrolling inflorescences and infructescences. We anticipated that ants attracted to extrafloral nectaries might protect the reproductive organs, increasing plant reproductive output. To evaluate the possibility of mutualism between D. floribunda and ant visitors, we determined whether ant-accessible plants showed a higher seed production than ant-excluded plants. Experimental fieldwork suggested a decrease in fruit set of ant-excluded plants compared with ant-accessible plants but the seed number per fruit was not affected by ant exclusion. Thus, total seed number per plant was highly reduced in treated spikes. Analyses of covariance confirmed these trends, indicating that total seed production per plant was strongly affected by ant exclusion. This study marks the first experimental report of this mutualistic association in Bromeliaceae.Key words: ant–plant interaction, Bromeliaceae, Chaco, Dyckia floribunda, fruit set, seed set, mutualism.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207