MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129111918 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2012)7

Impact of capitulum structure on reproductive success in the declining species <i>Centaurea cyanus</i> (Asteraceae): small to self and big to flirt?

2012· article· en· W2129111918 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Laurent Penet, Benoît Marion, Anne Bonis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pollination Ecology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelfingBiologyAsteraceaeInflorescenceOutcrossingPollinatorReproductive successPopulationReproductionPollinationBotanyEcologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attracting pollinators and achieving successful reproduction is essential to flowering plant species, which evolved different strategies to cope with unpredictable pollination service. The ability of selfing is most widespread and represents a reproductive insurance under varying conditions. In this study, we investigated reproductive success in Centaurea cyanus, a self-incompatible declining Asteraceae species. We measured seed set under outcrossing and autonomous selfing and assessed the impact of capitulum structure (i.e., the number of disc florets) on reproductive success. We report that the incompatibility system is either flexible or evolving a breakdown in this species, since autonomous selfing often resulted in production of few seeds. We also show that capitulum structure has a strong impact on reproduction, with smaller inflorescences presenting a better ability to self than larger ones, while larger inflorescences performed better than smaller ones when cross-pollinated. Variable capitulum structure in this Asteraceae species may therefore represent a reproductive strategy to achieve efficient reproduction under diverse pollination environments. Our results also suggest that this declining species might be disrupting its auto-incompatibility system in response to reduced habitats and declining population sizes.

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)0.001
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 score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pollination EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207