Differential nectar production between male and female flowers in a wild cucurbit: <i>Cucurbita maxima</i> ssp. <i>andreana</i> (Cucurbitaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dioecious and monoecious plants that depend on animal vectors for reproduction, pollinators have to be attracted to male and female flowers for pollination to be effective. In the monoecious Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana, male flowers are produced in greater quantity, are spatially more exposed to pollinators and offer pollen in addition to nectar as floral rewards. Nectar traits were compared between male and female flowers to determine any differences in the characteristics of the main reward offered to pollinators. Nectar chemical composition and sugar proportions were similar between flower types. Total nectar sugar production per female flower was threefold higher than per male flower, and nectar removal did not have any effect on total nectar production in both flower morphs. Pollinators reduced nectar standing crops to similar and very scarce amounts in both flower types. Results indicate indirectly that pollinators are consuming more nectar from female flowers, suggesting that the higher nectar production in female flowers may be a reward-based strategy to achieve the high female reproductive output observed in this species.Key words: Cucurbitaceae, Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana, nectar production, nectar sugar composition, removal effects, standing crop.
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".