Adaptation of male reproductive structures to wind pollination in gymnosperms: Cones and pollen grains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lu, Y., Jin, B., Wang, L., Wang, Y., Wang, D., Jiang, X.-X. and Chen, P. 2011. Adaptation of male reproductive structures to wind pollination in gymnosperms: Cones and pollen grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 897–906. Wind pollination (anemophily) in gymnosperms is thought to be an ancestral state. Previous studies considered wind pollination to be a largely random phenomenon, but recent evidence suggests that wind-pollinated species have evolved different complex reproductive adaptations for controlling and maximizing the success of wind pollination. However, compared with angiosperms, wind pollination in gymnosperms is poorly understood. We investigated the male reproductive structures of 13 representative gymnosperm species using a scanning electron microscope and digital camera, and analyzed how the morphological characteristics of male cones and pollen facilitate pollination. These characteristics showed a surprising variation between different gymnosperm species in improving pollination success. For example, the relationship between the position of the male cone and the surrounding vegetative structures is adjusted to optimize pollen release. The pollen grains have sacs and papilla and exhibit particular shapes after release from microsporangia, including boat-like, saccate, papilla-like and spheroid shapes, which facilitate pollen dispersal in the air. Taken together, our results suggest that the extensive diversity of male reproductive structures within gymnosperms represents an evolutionary response to long-term selection and results in solutions to the physical restraints of anemophily.
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".