MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156538613 · doi:10.2307/3558328

Genetic relatedness among developing seeds and intra fruit seed abortion in <i>Dalbergia sissoo</i> (Fabaceae)

2001· article· en· W2156538613 on OpenAlexaff
G. S. Mohana, R. Uma Shaanker, K. N. Ganeshaiah, Selvadurai Dayanandan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFabaceaeRAPDOvuleBotanyContext (archaeology)Genetic variationDalbergia sissooGenetic diversityHorticultureGeneticsPollenPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dalbergia sissoo, a wind-dispersed tropical tree, exhibits high intrafruit seed abortion. Of the four to five ovules in the flower, generally one and occasionally two or three develop to maturity. It has been proposed that the seed abortion is a consequence of intense sibling competition for maternal resources and that this competition occurs as an inverse function of the genetic relatedness among the developing seeds. Accordingly, developing seeds compete intensely when they are genetically less related but tend to develop together when genetically more related. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the genetic similarity among the pairs of seeds developing within a pod with that among (a) random pairs from the pool of all seeds, (b) random pairs from single-seeded pods, and (c) random pairs from two-seeded pods, using both randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and isozymes in five trees. We found that the pairs of seeds developing within a pod are genetically more similar than any random pairs of seeds in a tree. Thus the formation of two-seeded pods appear to be associated with increased genetic relatedness among the developing seeds. We discuss the results in the context of possible fitness advantages and then discuss the possible mechanisms that promote tolerance among related seeds.

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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207