MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141739050 · doi:10.1139/b11-001

The effect of invasive<i>Lythrum salicaria</i>pollen deposition on seed set in the native species<i>Decodon verticillatus</i>

2011· article· en· W2141739050 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Elizabeth M. Da Silva, Risa D. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollenBiologyPollinatorPollinationBotanyNative plantInvasive speciesIntroduced speciesPollen source

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relatively little attention has been paid to pollinator-mediated interactions among invasive and native plants in spite of the fact that pollen transfer between species in invaded communities has been shown to occur. In this study, we investigated the impact of pollen deposition from the invasive plant species Lythrum salicaria on seed set in a native species that is a member of the same family, Decodon verticillatus. Whole plants were subjected to hand pollination by conspecific (D. verticillatus only) or mixed (a 1:1 mixture of D. verticillatus and L. salicaria) pollen to determine if the addition of a mixed pollen load interferes with the ability of D. verticillatus pollen to set seed. We found the mixed pollen treatment reduced D. verticillatus seed set by 33.3% relative to the conspecific pollen treatment. Our study demonstrates that invasive plants have the potential to negatively impact the reproductive success of a native species through pollinator-mediated interactions. We discuss the potential implications of our findings to the evolution and persistence of native plant populations in invaded communities.

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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.168 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207