MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142859523 · doi:10.3732/ajb.94.9.1577

Vivipary in coastal cacti: a potential reproductive strategy in halophytic environments

2007· article· en· W2142859523 on OpenAlexaff
J. Hugo Cota‐Sánchez, Álvaro Reyes‐Olivas, Bardo Heleodoro Sánchez-Soto

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Research and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHalophyteBiological dispersalGerminationBotanySeed dispersalPopulationPollenEcologySalinity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vivipary, the germination of seeds within the fruit prior to abscission from the maternal plant, is an important event in plants. Two main types of vivipary are known in vascular plants: true vivipary and pseudovivipary. In crop grasses, pseudovivipary is an undesirable character as it results in lower yields. To date, vivipary in the Cactaceae has been reported for less than 20 species, most of which are cultivated. Here, we report viviparous (cryptoviviparous-a subcategory of true vivipary) cacti in nature in members of the tribes Cacteae and Pachycereeae (subfamily Cactoideae). We present four species inhabiting coastal plains in areas subject to periodic flooding, namely, Ferocactus herrerae, Stenocereus alamosensis, S. thurberi, and Pachycereus schottii. These species from localities in northwestern Mexico had viviparous fruits and offspring in different stages of development. A potential trend in the data indicates that the overall proportion of viviparous plants is higher in coastal flooding areas relative to halophytic, nonflooding areas. In our view, vivipary is a reproductive strategy that has evolved to provide a more efficient mechanism favoring germination and new avenues for survival by contributing to population maintenance and short-distance dispersal on halophytic substrates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicBotanical Research and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207