Pollination-related functions of decorative sterile flowers of nine Japanese <i>Hydrangea</i> species (Hydrangeaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most species of Hydrangea (Hydrangeaceae) have a flower arrangement in which several large sterile decorative flowers surround a dense cluster of small fertile flowers. These decorative flowers have been hypothesized to attract pollinators, but this has yet to be tested for this genus. To identify whether the decorative flowers have functions related to pollination success, we carried out field manipulation experiments in which we clipped or mounted decorative flowers of nine Hydrangea species, eight with and one without inherent decorative flowers, and recorded insect visits to the intact and treated inflorescences. The results showed that for most of the studied species, the presence of decorative flowers increased the frequency of visits and weakly increased the frequency of visits per unit area to inflorescences. Decorative flowers appeared to act as landing-sites for three species for which flowers represented a high proportion of the inflorescence surface area (i.e., H. scandens, H. luteovenosa, and H. macrophylla). The results suggest that the main function of decorative flowers of the studied Hydrangea species is to boost attractiveness to pollinators by increasing the inflorescence surface area, whereas the landing-site function was evident only in certain species.
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".