MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extensive pollen dispersal in a bird‐pollinated shrub, <i>Calothamnus quadrifidus</i>, in a fragmented landscape

2007· article· en· W2150349823 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Byrne, Carole P. Elliott, Colin J. Yates, David Coates

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsPollenBiologyBiological dispersalOutcrossingSelfingPollen sourcePollinatorEcologyShrubPopulationPollinationSeed dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollen dispersal was investigated in six populations of Calothamnus quadrifidus, a bird-pollinated shrub in the fragmented agricultural region of southern Western Australia. Paternity analysis using six microsatellite loci identified a pollen source within populations for 67% of seedlings, and the remainder were assumed to have arisen from pollen sources outside the populations. Outcrossing was variable, ranging from 5% to 82%, and long-distance pollen dispersal was observed in all populations with up to 43% of pollen sourced from outside the populations over distances of up to 5 km. This extensive pollen immigration was positively associated with population size but not isolation. Comparison of two populations of similar size but different density showed greater internal pollination and less selfing in the denser population, suggesting an influence of density on pollinator behaviour. The study revealed extensive long-distance pollen dispersal for C. quadrifidus within this fragmented agricultural landscape and highlighted the interaction between reserve populations and isolated road verge remnants in maintaining genetic connectivity at the landscape scale.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations104
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207