Pollination biology of the sclerophyllous shrub <i>Pultenaea villosa</i> Willd. (Fabaceae) in southeast Queensland, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The pollination biology of the common shrub Pultenaea villosa Willd. was examined in a subtropical dry sclerophyll forest in eastern Australia. We determined floral phenology and morphology, the timing of stigma receptivity and anther dehiscence, nectar availability, the plant breeding system, and flower visitors. The shrub's flowers are typical zygomorphic pea flowers with hidden floral rewards and reproductive structures. These flowers require special manipulation for insect access. A range of insects visited the flowers, although bees are predicted to be the principle pollinators based on their frequency on the flowers and their exclusive ability to operate the wing and keel petals to access the reproductive structures. Nectar and pollen are offered as rewards and were actively collected by bees. Nectar is offered to visitors in minute amounts at the base of the corolla. In Toohey Forest, P. villosa flowers in spring and is the most abundant floral resource in the understory of the forest at this time. The breeding system experiment revealed that P. villosa requires outcrossing for high levels of seed set and that the overlap of stigma receptivity and pollen dehiscence within the flower suggests the potential for self‐incompatibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".