Nectary structure and nectar presentation in the Mediterranean geophyte,<i>Urginea maritima</i>(Hyacinthaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphology, anatomy, and ultrastructure of the floral nectary of Urginea maritima (L.) Baker were investigated at three stages of nectary development. The plant possesses a typical gynopleural (septal) nectary with secondary presentation. The nectary consists of one layer of epithelium secretory cells and one to four layers of subsidiary cells subtended by two to six layers of parenchyma (subnectary) cells. The nectary releases the nectar at a point two-thirds towards the summit of the ovary by means of carpellary sutures. Nectar secretion appears to depend largely on the hydrolysis of starch grains stored in amyloplasts at the intermediate stage. The hydrolysis process most likely commences in the epithelium layer followed by the subsidiary tissue and then the parenchyma cells of the ovary wall. A symplastic transfer of the secreted nectar occurs by plasmodesmata connecting the subsidiary cells to the parenchyma and the epithelial secretory cells. However, microchannels in the cell wall of the epithelial cells may facilitate the apoplastic transfer of the nectar into the nectary cavity. The old stage of nectary development is characterized by a crystallized form of nectar, collapse of the parenchyma cells, complete starch hydrolysis, and disappearance of the amyloplasts and endoplasmic reticulum.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".