MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779062116 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2017-0104

Breeding system and inbreeding depression in the rare orchid, <i>Platanthera praeclara</i>, in a fragmented grassland landscape

2017· article· en· W2779062116 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven E. Travers, Kirk M. Anderson, Pati Vitt, M. O. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNature ConservancyCenter for Plant ConservationU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsInbreeding depressionPollinationBiologyOutcrossingPollinatorHand-pollinationGrasslandPollenBotanySelf-pollinationInbreedingAgronomyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important consequence of self-compatibility in plants is that self-pollination can have deleterious effects on plant fitness because of inbreeding. We conducted a hand pollination experiment under field conditions to measure the magnitude of inbreeding depression associated with self-pollination in the rare western prairie fringed-orchid Platanthera praeclara Sheviak and Bowles. By comparing capsules and seeds resulting from cross versus self-pollination treatments, we determined that self-pollination reduces seed quality while having no detectable effect on capsule production or seed numbers. A smaller percentage of seeds resulting from self-pollination contained an embryo (18%) relative to seeds from cross-pollination (46%). Seeds that had an embryo were scored for the size of the embryo, small or large. A smaller proportion of seeds from self-pollination contained a large embryo (75%) relative to seeds from cross-pollination (92%). These results suggest that sexual reproduction and recruitment in this rare plant are dependent on the frequency of pollinator visitations that result in outcrossing.

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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207