MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090788397 · doi:10.1086/649023

Variation of Self‐Incompatibility within Invasive Populations of Purple Loosestrife (<i>Lythrum salicaria</i>L.) from Eastern North America

2010· article· en· W2090788397 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert I. Colautti, Neil White, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsBiologyPollinationSelf-pollinationBotanyRange (aeronautics)ColonizationEcologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Colonization may favor self‐compatibility (SC) in invasive plants, a process consistent with Baker’s law. We investigated this hypothesis in invasive eastern North American populations of tristylous Lythrum salicaria L. (purple loosestrife) by controlled self‐ and cross‐pollinations of 124 plants sampled from 12 populations grown under uniform glasshouse conditions. We evaluated whether populations at the northern front of the invasion exhibited higher levels of SC than southern populations, which are closer to source populations for the North American invasion. We also sought evidence for morph‐specific differences in the strength of trimorphic incompatibility. We used the ASTER statistical program to jointly model three measures of SC: (1) the probability of producing at least one seed following self‐pollination, (2) the number of fruits produced by self‐pollination, and (3) the average number of seeds per fruit resulting from self‐pollination. Just over one‐quarter of plants set at least one fruit after self‐pollination, and there was a significant effect of style morph on variation in SC, with the mid‐styled morph most compatible. Although variation for SC was detected in 11 of the 12 populations, there was no evidence that SC increased toward the northern range limit as a result of the invasion process.

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 score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations49
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207