The effects of plant size and light availability on male and female reproductive success and functional gender in a hermaphrodite tree species,<i>Magnolia stellata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant size and light availability may affect male and (or) female reproductive success and their relative contribution (functional gender). To test this hypothesis, we identified parents of 184 seedlings in a local population within a metapopulation of a hermaphroditic, insect-pollinated tree species, Magnolia stellata (Siebold & Zucc.) Maxim., using 14 nuclear and 3 chloroplast microsatellite markers. Parent pairs of all the seedlings were determined, and both seed and pollen parents could be distinguished for 49.5% of the seedlings. We also measured the parents’ plant size (diameter at breast height of the thickest ramet within each genet; DBHt) and the relative photosynthetic photon flux density (rPPFD) they received. The proportion of seedlings that originated from selfing was 20.7%. The number of seedlings parental trees produced as seed parents (S) was positively affected by DBHtand rPPFD. DBHt(but not rPPFD) also positively affected the number of seedlings sired as pollen parents (P). The femaleness of the parental trees (S/(S + P)) was positively affected by DBHt, probably because DBHthad a stronger effect on the trees’ reproductive success as seed parents than on their success as pollen parents. These results suggest that plant size affects not only reproductive success (male and female), but also functional gender.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".