Flowering phenology and female reproductive success in the mass-flowering tree Sorbus aucuparia (Rosaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flowering phenology can strongly affect reproductive success. In mass-flowering species, synchronous individuals may have a reproductive advantage because of the increased number of pollinators and decreased probability of predispersal seed predation. We investigated flowering phenology in relation to female reproductive success, and the responses of pollinators and predispersal seed predators to flowering variation, in 4 populations of Sorbus aucuparia in the northwest Iberian Peninsula, 2 of them over a 3-y period. Flowering lasted about 2 weeks at the end of spring, during which most individuals in the populations flowered synchronously (i.e., exhibited mass-flowering). Variation among individuals and populations in flowering dates and flowering duration was significant, and the differences remained consistent between years, especially between those with greater production of flowers and fruits. Pollinator visit frequency was independent of flowering phenology. The relationship between flowering phenology and predispersal seed predation was not significant as well. Contrary to the general hypothesis for mass-flowering, plants flowering earlier showed lower seed predation rates and higher female reproductive success (i.e., greater total dispersed fruits). The selective pressure exerted on flowering phenology by predispersal seed predators may be limited by the effect of plant size on flowering phenology. Plant size and local conditions are important factors affecting phenology and female reproductive success, and they may explain the observed variation in flowering phenology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".