Rain pollination provides reproductive assurance in a deceptive orchid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Abiotic pollination by wind or water is well established in flowering plants. In some species pollination by rain splashes, a condition known as ombrophily, has been proposed as a floral strategy. However, evidence for this type of abiotic pollination has remained controversial and many reported cases have subsequently been shown to be false. This study investigates ombrophily in the deceptive orchid Acampe rigida to determine the mechanism by which this species is able to maintain high fecundity, despite flowering during the rainy season in south-west China when pollinators are scarce. METHODS: The floral mechanisms promoting rain pollination in A. rigida were observed and described in detail. Controlled pollination experiments and observations of floral visitors were conducted. A field experiment using rain shelters at 14 sites in Guangxi, south-west China, evaluated the contribution of rain pollination to fruit-set. KEY RESULTS: During rainfall, raindrops physically flicked away the anther cap exposing the pollinarium. Raindrops then caused pollinia to be ejected upwards with the strap-like stipe pulling them back and causing them to fall into the stigmatic cavity, resulting in self-pollination. Neither flower nor pollen function were damaged by water. Although A. rigida is self-compatible, it is incapable of autonomous self-pollination without the assistance of rain splashes. The results of the rain-sheltering experiment indicated that rain pollination contributed substantially to increasing fruit-set, although there was variation among sites in the intensity of this effect. CONCLUSIONS: A. rigida flowers during the rainy season, when pollinators are scarce, and ombrophily functions to provide reproductive assurance without compromising opportunities for outcrossing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".