The Evolution of Ovule Number and Flower Size in Wind-Pollinated Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In angiosperms, ovules are "packaged" within individual flowers, and an optimal strategy should occur depending on pollination and resource conditions. In animal-pollinated species, wide variation in ovule number per flower occurs, and this contrasts with wind-pollinated plants, where most species possess uniovulate flowers. This pattern is usually explained as an adaptive response to low pollen receipt in wind-pollinated species. Here, we develop a phenotypic model for the evolution of ovule number per flower that incorporates the aerodynamics of pollen capture and a fixed resource pool for provisioning of flowers, ovules, and seeds. Our results challenge the prevailing explanation for the association between uniovulate flowers and wind pollination. We demonstrate that when flowers are small and inexpensive, as they are in wind-pollinated species, ovule number should be minimized and lower than the average number of pollen tubes per style, even under stochastic pollination and fertilization regimes. The model predicts that plants benefit from producing many small inexpensive flowers, even though some flowers capture too few pollen grains to fertilize their ovules. Wind-pollinated plants with numerous flowers distributed throughout the inflorescence, each with a single ovule or a few ovules, sample more of the airstream, and this should maximize pollen capture and seed production.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".