Sex allocation, pollen limitation and masting in whitebark pine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Masting, the synchronous and episodic production of seed crops, is thought to benefit plant reproductive success through positive density‐dependent effects on pollination, dispersal and seed survival. Of these, only increased pollination efficiency in mast years can be a proximate mechanism for masting by synchronizing reproductive effort across individuals through pollen coupling. Increased pollination efficiency requires synchronous investment in male and female function during mast years. Sex allocation theory, however, predicts a trade‐off in investment between male and female reproductive allocation dependent on total resources invested in reproduction. We describe patterns of sex allocation inPinus albicaulis(whitebark pine), using data on pollen and seed cone counts over 5 years for 29 trees across 7 sites in Montana, U.S.A. Whitebark pine seed cone maturation increased with site pollen cone production, indicating pollen limitation, and pollen and seed cone production were positively correlated across years. Simulating mature seed cone production from these empirical relationships resulted in greater average mature seed cone production than alternative scenarios of (i) no synchrony between pollen cone production and pollen cone initiation, (ii) negative correlation (trade‐off) between seed cone initiation and pollen cone production or (iii) no masting. Synthesis. Our data support a role for pollination efficiency in both increasing long‐term seed production and as a proximate mechanism for synchronizing masting inPinus albicaulis. Increased pollination efficiency joins greater seed dispersal and survival in mast years seen in other studies, as an additional positive density‐dependent benefit of masting. Positive density‐dependent fitness benefits may therefore influence patterns of sex allocation in relation to total resources invested in reproduction. The pollen limitation found here combined with stand isolation and reduced tree density due to mortality from forest pests and other environmental stressors may lead to reduced seed cone maturation and changes in masting patterns.
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".