Flowering phenology and trap pollination of the rare endemic plant <i>Ceropegia thaithongiae</i> in montane forest of northern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Ceropegia species are well known for their complex pitfall flowers that temporarily imprison their pollinators, various aspects of their pollination ecology are still unknown. This study investigated flowering phenology, functional floral traits, and insect visitation in a natural population of a rare endemic lithophyte, Ceropegia thaithongiae Kidyoo. Flowering of C. thaithongiae was not synchronous but staggered. Anthesis lasted mostly 1–2 days, but its duration was shorter in flowers with a pollinium inserted into the stigmatic chamber. Several different insects visited flowers, but only chloropid and milichiid flies were effective pollinators. At anthesis, the epithelial osmophores on the corolla lobes emitted a floral scent that was simple in composition. Nectar of high viscosity was exuded from the nectaries hidden behind the guide rails. When transported by an insect, the pollinarium was attached to bristles on the mouthparts. Size and shape of the thin pellucid margin of the pollinium enable it to fit into the stigmatic chamber in a lock-and-key arrangement. The pollen transfer efficiency was 6.8%. The plant’s staggered flowering and pollination-induced ending of anthesis are advantageous in decreasing competition for pollinators when flower-visiting insects are scarce.
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 | 0.001 | 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".