MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127171852 · doi:10.1093/aob/mci134

Comparative Structure and Pollen Production of the Stamens and Pollinator-deceptive Staminodes of Commelina coelestis and C. dianthifolia (Commelinaceae)

2005· article· en· W2127171852 on OpenAlexafffund
William Hrycan, Arthur R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStamenCommelinaceaeBiologyPollenPollinatorPollinationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Flowers of Commelina coelestis and C. dianthifolia provide pollen alone as a floral reward, and rely on visual cues to attract pollinators. Three stamen types, all producing pollen, occur in each of these species: two cryptically coloured lateral stamens, a single cryptically coloured central stamen and three bright yellow staminodes that sharply contrast with the blue to purple corolla. The objective was to compare the stamen structure and pollen characteristics of each of the three stamen types, and to test the hypothesis that the staminodes are poor contributors of viable pollen for the siring of seed. The pollination roles of the three stamen types and the breeding systems of both species were also explored. METHODS: Light, fluorescence and scanning electron microscopy were utilized to examine stamen morphology and pollen structure and viability. Controlled hand pollinations were used to explore the breeding system of each species. Filament and style lengths were measured to investigate herkogamy and autogamy. KEY RESULTS: Pollen from all stamen morphs is viable, but staminode pollen has significantly lower viability. Pollen polymorphism exists both (a) between the lateral and central stamens and the staminodes, and (b) within each anther. Lateral and central stamens have thicker endothecia with a greater number of secondary cell wall thickenings than the staminodes. CONCLUSIONS: Both species are entomophilous and facultatively autogamous. Lateral stamen pollen is important for cross-pollination, central stamen pollen is utilized by both species as a pollinator reward and for delayed autogamy in C. dianthifolia, and the staminodes mimic, by means of both colour and epidermal features, large amounts of pollen to attract insects to the flowers. Pollen from all three anther morphs is capable of siring seed, although staminode pollen is inferior. The thin staminode endothecium with fewer secondary thickenings retards staminode dehiscence.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations40
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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