MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114543416 · doi:10.1139/b08-020

Pollen limitation and cleistogamy in subalpine <i>Viola praemorsa</i>

2008· article· en· W2114543416 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Jessica R. K. Forrest, James D. Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPollenPollinatorHerbivorePollinationBotanyEcologyViolaceaeSexual reproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early-flowering species may be especially susceptible to occasional pollen limitation and, therefore, may benefit from a mixed-mating strategy that provides reproductive assurance. We studied cleistogamous (CL) and chasmogamous (CH) fruit set of spring-flowering Viola praemorsa Dougl. ex Lindl. along an elevational gradient in the Rocky Mountains, testing whether pollen limitation or allocation to CL reproduction covaried with timing of flowering onset, within and across sites. Contrary to predictions, we found no pollen limitation of reproduction at any site, and variation among sites in the pattern of allocation to cleistogamy was not related to growing season length. Differences in reproductive strategy between early- and late-flowering plants within sites were attributable to differences in plant size, with relative allocation to cleistogamy increasing with size. This pattern has been found in some other cleistogamous species, and may indicate a cost of large CH floral displays, perhaps associated with geitonogamy or herbivory. We found no experimental evidence for resource reallocation in response to CH reproductive output, although a weak negative relationship between CH and CL fruit set across a larger sample of unmanipulated plants suggests such a trade-off. The significance of cleistogamy may be clarified by studying how pollinator visitation, self-pollination, and herbivore damage vary temporally and with floral display size.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.148 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207