MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165023366 · doi:10.1086/533602

Floral Structure and Dynamics of Nectar Production in<i>Echinacea pallida</i>var.<i>angustifolia</i>(Asteraceae)

2008· article· en· W2165023366 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Wist, Arthur R. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNectarBiologyBotanyPollenAnthesisPollinationStamenPhloemAsteraceaeInflorescenceHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reproductive structure of the disk florets of Echinacea pallida var. angustifolia (Asteraceae) in relation to insect pollination was investigated using light, fluorescence, and scanning electron microscopy. The study of this self‐incompatible species emphasized pollen production, pollen‐stigma interactions, transmitting tissue, and vasculature within the style. Nectary structure and nectar production dynamics were also examined. Produced in the fused anther tubes, the trinucleate pollen with yellow pollenkitt was plentiful per floret, yielding a pollen:ovule ratio of 24,130. Encircling the style base at the ovary summit, the floral nectary possessed modified stomata whose pores, as well as nonstomatal gaps in the epidermis, provided apoplastic pathways for nectar escape and reabsorption. Phloem alone supplied the gland interior, the sieve element–companion cell complexes reaching up to the nectary epidermis. Nectar was hexose dominant, its volume and nectar‐sugar quantity per floret peaking on the afternoon of the first day of anthesis until the morning of the second day. Nectar production only occurred in half of the florets for 3 d, rarely for 5 d. Potential honey production from fields of this species was estimated at 2.1–11.9 kg/ha.

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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207