Pollen limitation and cleistogamy in subalpine <i>Viola praemorsa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".