MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Small populations are mate‐poor but pollinator‐rich in a rare, self‐incompatible plant, <i>Hymenoxys herbacea</i> (Asteraceae)

2007· article· en· W2055914758 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lesley G. Campbell, Brian C. Husband

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsAsteraceaePollinatorBiologyPollinationPollenBotanyEvolutionary biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If pollinators or compatible mates are scarce, plants in small populations may be pollen-limited and consequently produce fewer offspring. However, determining the relative importance of the genetic vs ecological mechanisms limiting successful pollination is challenging. We explored the relationships among population size, population connectivity, pollinator visitation, allozyme diversity, mate availability (measured as percent compatible crosses among plants within a population), and pollen limitation in 12 populations (N = 39-885,274) of the self-incompatible plant Hymenoxys herbacea in Ontario, Canada. Unexpectedly, small populations had more insect flower visitors per capitulum than large populations. Consistent with the effects of genetic drift, both allozyme polymorphism and mate availability decreased with decreasing population size. Pollen limitation was low and significant in only one population and could not be predicted based on knowledge of population size, connectivity, compatible mate availability, or pollinator visitation. Population size had detectable effects on both pollinator activity and mate availability. However, because the effect of population size was complementary on these two potentially limiting mechanisms, this threatened plant was rarely pollen-limited.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations70
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207