Effect of Resource Reallocation on Pollen Limitation and Reproductive Assurance of Apocynum venetum L. in an Arid Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollen limitation is considered to be a strong force driving the evolution of reproductive strategies in flowering plants. However, resource reallocation may occur among seeds because of variation in the quantity or quality of pollen received. We performed single-flower and whole-plant pollen supplementation and emasculation of flowers of Apocynum venetum L. to estimate pollen limitation and reproductive assurance. In addition, we calculated the visiting patterns of the pollinators, frequency of pollinators to estimate the effect of pollinator activity and further on the reproductive success of A. venetum. Our results indicated estimates from single-flower manipulations were not biased, closely resembling those from whole-plant manipulations. We found Apis mellifera was the dominant pollinator during the pollination process. In addition, insect pollination played a more important role in the outcrossing system, which could explain the differences in reproductive success. Our results also showed that autonomous self-pollination eliminates pollen limitation and provides reproductive assurance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".