Wind or insect pollination? Ambophily in a subtropical gymnosperm <i>Gnetum parvifolium</i> (Gnetales)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gnetum (Gnetales) has long been regarded as insect pollinated due to its range‐restricted distribution in tropical rain forests, where wind pollination is supposed to be detrimental. However, ubiquitous pollen limitation in the tropics might cause transition to anemophily, or even ambophily for reproductive assurance, especially for gymnosperms such as Gnetum , which exhibit various anemophilous syndromes, including absence of petals, greenish color of strobili, dioecy and uniovulate flowers. Pollination treatments applied to Gnetum parvifolium in southern China revealed this rare and endangered species to be pollen limited and incapable of apomixis. Pollen grains of G. parvifolium did not adhere to each other and could be trapped by interception traps near the male and female strobili. Seed set in the netted treatment (anemophily) was significantly higher than in the bagged treatment (apomixis) but lower than open pollination (anemophily and entomophily), indicating that both wind and biotic pollination contributed to seed production of G. parvifolium. The occurrence of ambophily in Gnetum and the prevalence of anemophily in E hpedra and W elwitschia suggest that wind may also play a role in the pollination of the ancient Gnetales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".