Attractiveness of the dark central floret in wild carrots: do umbel size and height matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The function of the dark central floret (DCF) in the wild carrot, Daucus carota L. (Apiaceae), is uncertain. It has been suggested that it is a vestigial structure without a function, that it serves as a long or short distance signal to attract pollinators, or that it might function as a defense mechanism against herbivores. We experimentally assessed the role of the umbel size and height in the attractiveness of the DCF to insects in a coastal population of D. carota in western Turkey. We did not find differences in the number of insect visits between umbels with a DCF and umbels in which the DCF was removed when they were of average diameter (10 cm) and were placed either at the average inflorescence height (120 cm) or at 147 cm above ground. Similarly, we did not find differences in the number of insect visits before and after the removal of the DCF from an umbel or between umbels of small (5–7 cm) and large (11–13 cm) diameters. However, umbels of average diameter with DCF received more insect visits than those without it when we placed them at 81 cm above ground. These results suggest that umbel height, not diameter per se, influences the attractiveness of the DCF in the studied population. Thus, our study supports the hypothesis that DCF function depends on ecological context, reliant on both the visitor community and the predominant flower phenotype.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".