MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169366636 · doi:10.1139/b06-092

The angiosperm flora of the Archipelago Juan Fernandez (Chile): origin and dispersal

2006· article· en· W2169366636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gabriel Bernardello, Gregory J. Anderson, Tod F. Stuessy, Daniel J. Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUniversity of ConnecticutNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiological dispersalBiologySeed dispersal syndromeSeed dispersalEcologyFlora (microbiology)PantropicalDiaspore (botany)AcheneGenusPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the hypothesized origin and the methods of arrival of the angiosperm colonists to the Juan Fernandez Islands. We also summarize the dispersal capabilities of the current flora, including data on fruit type, fruit length, and dispersal unit length, correlating these features with dispersal and establishment. Most species originated from South America, followed by Pantropical, Australian, New Zealand, and Pacific colonizers. Sea and land birds were the most important initial long-distance dispersal agents. Most colonizing species are hermaphroditic flowered, and thus all dispersal methods are represented among them. Monoecious, andromonoecious and gynomonoecious, dioecious, and polygamous species were mainly carried by birds. Most wind- and bird-pollinated colonizing genera arrived with birds as did most annual herbs and species with bright-colored flowers. In the current flora, the majority of the species have dry fruits. In monoecious, andromonoecious and gynomonoecious, and dioecious species, achenes predominate. Fleshy fruits are limited to perennials. Most species have medium to small dispersal units, and generally, the larger the flower, the larger the fruit. Large- and medium-sized dispersal units are common in shrubs and trees. Abiotic dispersal is common in the current flora, which may reflect the ancestral dispersal capability of the colonizers, or adaptation to the absence of a fauna to disperse seeds and fruits. Anemochorous and autochorous species are mainly perennial and have medium to large, unisexual flowers. Anemochorous species have small dispersal units and dull-colored flowers, whereas large dispersal units and brightly colored flowers are frequent in autochorous species. Medium-sized dispersal units are represented in autochorous or ornithochorous species. The establishment and evolution of this flora was previously discussed to have occurred with very few pollination and (or) reproductive options. This study suggests that elements associated with dispersal are also analogously limited.

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 score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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