MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099857763 · doi:10.1139/b09-054

Seed abortion in the bat pollinated Neotropical tree species,<i>Caryocar brasiliense</i>(Caryocaraceae)

2009· article· en· W2099857763 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosane Garcia Collevatti, Raquel Estolano, Silmara F. Garcia, John Du Vall Hay

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInbreeding depressionOutcrossingBroodPollinationPollenSeed orchardBotanyAbortionHand-pollinationSelfingInbreedingHorticulturePopulationPollinatorPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In self-compatible plants, the reduction in brood size may be caused either by inbreeding depression, resource limitation, maternal regulation of offspring quality, or by sibling rivalry. We studied seed abortion in Caryocar brasiliense Camb. (Caryocaraceae), a Neotropical tree species, to verify whether seeds sired by self-pollination are aborted. Fruits were sampled from 23 mother trees to estimate seed set and proportion of aborted seeds. Ripened and aborted seeds from 18 mother trees were genotyped using 10 microsatellite loci together with mother trees and all nearby adults (83 adults) to determine the pollen donor by assignment test. From the 541 seeds, 190 were aborted and the mean number of aborted seeds per fruit was 0.627 (SD = 0.807). Proportion of aborted seeds was different among mother trees and among fruits within mother trees. All but three aborted seeds were sired by self-pollination and selfed seeds were aborted in fruits harbouring both selfed and outcrossed seeds. Aborted outcrossed seeds were sired by pollen donors closely related to mother trees. Our results strongly support that seed abortion in C. brasiliense may be the outcome of inbreeding depression and sibling rivalry when selfed and outcross pollinated ovules compete.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.800
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207