Beyond floricentrism: The pollination function of inflorescences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mating by outcrossing plants depends on the frequency and quality of the interaction between pollen vectors and individual flowers. However, the historical focus of pollination biology on individual flowers (floricentrism) cannot produce a complete understanding of the role of pollination in plant mating because mating is an aggregate process, which depends on the reproductive outcomes of all of a plant’s flowers. Simultaneous display of multiple flowers in an inflorescence increases a plant’s attractiveness to pollinators, which should, in general, enhance mating opportunities. However, whenever pollinators visit multiple flowers on an inflorescence, self‐pollination among flowers can reduce the pollen available for export to other plants (pollen discounting) and can increase the incidence of inbreeding depression for embryos and offspring. Therefore, the size of floral displays that maximize mating frequency and quality generally balance the benefits of attractiveness against the costs of self‐pollination. This balance can shift considerably if different flowers serve female and male functions at one time (sexual segregation) and flowers are arranged in inflorescences so that pollinators visit female flowers before male flowers. However, the effectiveness of sexual segregation depends on the extent to which a particular inflorescence architecture induces consistent movement patterns by pollinators. In general, the consistency of pollinator movement patterns varies with inflorescence architecture and differs between pollinator types. Such variation creates many options for the evolution of the diverse inflorescence characteristics observed within angiosperms, which can be appreciated only by moving beyond a floricentric perspective of the role of pollination in plant mating.
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".