MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058647354 · doi:10.1890/06-1017

EXPANDING THE LIMITS OF THE POLLEN-LIMITATION CONCEPT: EFFECTS OF POLLEN QUANTITY AND QUALITY

2007· article· en· W2058647354 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcelo A. Aizen, Lawrence D. Harder

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUS-UK Fulbright CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPollenEcologyQuality (philosophy)Environmental scienceBiologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollination commonly limits seed production, as addition of pollen to stigmas often increases fecundity. This response is usually interpreted as evidence that plants' stigmas receive too few pollen grains to maximize ovule fertilization (quantity limitation); however, many genetic studies demonstrate that poor-quality pollen can also reduce seed production (quality limitation). We explore both aspects of pollen limitation theoretically with a dose-response model that incorporates a saturating negative-exponential relation of seed production to pollen receipt. This relation depends on aspects of ovule production, pollen import, pollen-pistil interactions and seed development, all of which can contribute to pollen limitation. Our model reveals that quantity limitation is restricted to the lowest range of pollen receipt, for which siring success per pollen grain is high, whereas quality limitation acts throughout the range of pollen receipt if plants do not import the highest-quality pollen. In addition to pollinator availability and efficiency, quantity limitation is governed by all post-pollination aspects of seed production. In contrast, quality limitation depends on the difference in survival of embryos sired by naturally delivered pollen vs. by pollen of maximal quality. We briefly illustrate the distinction between these two components of pollen limitation with results from the mistletoe Tristerix corymbosus. Our model also shows that the standard pollen-supplementation technique neither estimates the total intensity of pollen limitation nor distinguishes between its quantity and quality components. As an alternative, we propose a methodological protocol that requires both measurement of seed production following excess pollination with only outcross pollen and quantification of the dose-response relation of seed output to pollen receipt. This method estimates both the total extent of pollen limitation and its two components. Finally, we consider the influences on quantity and quality limitation, which reveals that quantity limitation probably occurs much less often than has been inferred from pollen-supplementation experiments. These interpretations suggest that an expanded perspective that recognizes the fecundity consequences of pollination with poor-quality pollen would promote ecological understanding of pollen limitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations516
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207