MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119680550 · doi:10.1093/aob/mcj027

Floral Nectar Production and Nectary Anatomy and Ultrastructure of Echinacea purpurea (Asteraceae)

2005· article· en· W2119680550 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Wist, Arthur R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarBiologyPollinatorBotanyAnthesisUltrastructurePhloemTrichomePollinationPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In spite of the impressive species diversity in the Asteraceae and their widespread appeal to many generalist pollinators, floral-nectary ultrastructure in the family has rarely been investigated. To redress this, a study using Echinacea purpurea, a plant of horticultural and nutraceutical value, was undertaken. Nectar secretion of disc florets was compared with floral nectary ultrastructure taking into account nectar's potential impact upon the reproductive success of this outcrossing species. METHODS: Micropipette collections of nectar in conjunction with refractometry were used to determine the volume and nectar-sugar quantities of disc florets throughout their phenology, from commencement of its production to cessation of secretion. Light, scanning-electron and transmission-electron microscopy were utilized to examine morphology, anatomy and ultrastructure of nectaries of the disc florets. KEY RESULTS: Florets were protandrous with nectar being secreted from anthesis until the third day of the pistillate phase. Nectar production per floret peaked on the first day of stigma receptivity, making the two innermost whorls of open florets most attractive to foraging visitors. Modified stomata were situated along the apical rim of the collar-like nectary, which surrounds the style base and sits on top of the inferior ovary. The floral nectary was supplied by phloem only, and both sieve elements and companion cells were found adjacent to the epidermis; the latter participated in the origin of some of the precursor cells that yielded these specialized cells of phloem. Companion cells possessed wall ingrowths (transfer cells). Lobed nuclei were a key feature of secretory parenchyma cells. CONCLUSIONS: The abundance of mitochondria suggests an eccrine mechanism of secretion, although dictyosomal vesicles may contribute to a granulocrine process. Phloem sap evidently is the main contributor of nectar carbohydrates. From the sieve elements and companion cells, an apoplastic route via intercellular spaces and cell walls, leading to the pores of modified stomata, is available. A symplastic pathway, via plasmodesmata connecting sieve elements to companion, parenchyma and epidermal cells, is also feasible. Uncollected nectar was reabsorbed, and the direct innervation of the nectary by sieve tubes potentially serves a second important route for nectar-sugar reclamation. Microchannels in the outer cuticle may facilitate both secretion and reabsorption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations129
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207