MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163726719 · doi:10.1139/b08-139

Effect of introduced <i>Euphorbia esula</i> on the pollination of <i>Viola pedatifida</i>

2009· article· en· W2163726719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Benjamin R. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyViolaceaeEuphorbiaPollinationBotanyPollenViolaHand-pollinationEuphorbiaceaePollinator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduced plants may compete for pollination with native plants, resulting in reduced fruit or seed set. In this study, I use several techniques to assess whether the invasive plant Euphorbia esula L. (leafy spurge, Euphorbiaceae) reduces the pollination success of chasmogamous flowers of the native plant Viola pedatifida G. Don (prairie violet, Violaceae), which has chasmogamous and cleistogamous flowers. Euphorbia pollen was found on most Viola stigmas, suggesting the potential for competition. Additionally, application of Euphorbia pollen to Viola stigmas prior to conspecific pollen reduced seed set. However, natural receipt of Euphorbia and other heterospecific pollen was not associated with decreased fruit or seed set. In the field, fruit set was higher for Viola in sites with Euphorbia despite increased Euphorbia pollen receipt, and seed set did not vary with the presence of Euphorbia. However, there was no significant interaction between the presence of Euphorbia and flower type (cleistogamous or chasmogamous), suggesting that increased fruit set near Euphorbia is unrelated to pollination. This study suggests that Viola and Euphorbia interact through shared pollinators, but there is no evidence that competition for pollination with Euphorbia reduces Viola’s fecundity or results in increased reliance on cleistogamous flowers.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207