Flower and seed production as affected by axis category and shoot size in two Patagonian <i>Nothofagus</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flower distribution within the tree crown may affect both pollination dynamics and the costs of flowering on tree growth. For Nothofagus obliqua (Mirb.) Oerst. and Nothofagus nervosa (Phil.) Krasser, the production of flowers and viable seeds were compared among axes of contrasting size and category in the tree crown. For annual shoots arising from three axis categories (main branches, secondary branches, and twigs), the numbers of nodes, staminate flowers, pistillate flowers and axillary buds, and seed viability were evaluated. Most flowering shoots produced both staminate and pistillate flowers. The number of flowers of each type was related positively with the number of nodes of the shoot. Longer shoots had proportionally more pistillate flowers than short shoots. The three axis categories produced both flower types in direct proportion to the size of their shoots, but main branches presented more axillary vegetative buds than secondary branches and twigs. For N. obliqua, the percentage of viable seeds was lower in secondary branches than in main branches and twigs, perhaps owing to a lower probability of cross-pollination in secondary branches. The coexistence of vegetative and reproductive functions may cause interference between them. Massive allocation of meristems to flowering reduces meristem availability for growth and, especially, flowering in the following growing season.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".