Floral and inflorescence effects on variation in pollen removal and seed production among six legume species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Most flowering plants display multiple flowers, so that the interaction with pollinators that determines their mating success can vary with both the characteristics of individual flowers and aggregate properties of the entire floral display, especially the number of open flowers (floral display size). These effects are seldom examined in concert and their collective consequences for interspecific differences in reproductive performance have not been considered previously. In this paper, we characterize the relation of pollen removal and seed production to differences in floral and inflorescence characteristics among six species of herbaceous legumes (Fabaceae). Several aspects of reproductive performance varied significantly among species with either plant traits or aspects of pollinator behaviour that depend on plant traits. Pollinator visitation, as measured by the ratio of pollen removal during 24 h to first‐visit removal, varied positively with both nectar production per flower and floral display size. Bumble‐bees visited more flowers per inflorescence on species with large floral displays, with no increase in the proportion of flowers visited. Pollen removal during a flower's first visit varied negatively among species with the mean number of flowers visited by bees per inflorescence. These results indicate that floral and inflorescence traits act together to influence both pollinator energetics, which affects a plant species’ attractiveness, and the rate of pollen removal, which should affect pollen export. In contrast, neither pollen removal during 24 h, nor female fecundity varied significantly with floral or display characteristics.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".