Does dose-dependent petal damage affect pollen limitation in an annual plant?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage to flowers by herbivores, or florivory, can have direct impacts on gamete survival and can also indirectly affect fitness by reducing pollinator service. While recent studies have examined the impact of natural or artificial floral damage, very few researchers have manipulated both damage and pollen addition to see whether pollen limitation is enhanced by damage, and no workers, to my knowledge, have examined whether pollen limitation is dependent on the levels of florivory used. I used a pollen addition treatment and six levels of artificial floral damage to investigate whether damage increases pollen limitation and whether that pollen limitation becomes more severe with increasing numbers of petals damaged in Nemophila menziesii Hook. & Arn. I found that artificial floral damage that mimics natural florivore damage increases pollen limitation, and that this pollen limitation generally increased with increasing numbers of petals damaged. The treatment with the heaviest amount of damage did not suffer the most pollen limitation, perhaps because flowers in this treatment remained radially symmetric. These findings suggest that florivory may decrease pollen import through pollinator deterrence and could thus serve as a selective force on either floral or defense traits in outcrossing plant populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".