Pollen limitation and reproduction varies with population size in experimental populations of<i>Sabatia angularis</i>(Gentianaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals in large plant populations are expected to benefit from increased reproductive success relative to those in small populations because of the facilitative effects of large aggregations on pollination. As populations become small, the inability to attract sufficient numbers of pollinators can reduce reproduction via pollen limitation. This study experimentally tested whether such trends occur for the herbaceous biennial Sabatia angularis (L.) Pursh (Gentianaceae). We created artificial populations of varying size consisting of potted S. angularis plants in two field sites to determine whether population size affected mean fruit and seed set. We also examined whether population size affected the degree of pollen limitation using a supplemental pollination design in one of the sites. Our results showed that, on average, seed set was lower in large populations, not small populations, of S. angularis and that this result may be due to increased pollen limitation in large populations. We suggest that in certain contexts, small populations may enjoy reproductive advantages over large populations by escaping intraspecific competition for pollinators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".