Floral Longevity and Attraction of Arctic Lupine, Lupinus arcticus: Implications for Pollination Efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollination by insects is a mutualistic relationship in which flowers receive pollen for reproduction while pollinators are rewarded with pollen or nectar. Floral longevity (the period an individual flower blooms) and floral attraction (the period during which pollinators are attracted to the flower, often indicated by petal colour) both play prominent roles in plant and pollinator success. This study investigated whether floral longevity and floral attraction were mediated by pollination type in arctic lupine (Lupinus arcticus S. Wats.), a common herbaceous perennial in northwestern North America. Flowers were either open to pollinators, cross-pollinated by hand, or bagged to prevent cross-pollination, and floral longevity, seed set, and flower colour were observed. Open and hand-pollinated flowers had significantly shorter floral longevities and higher percent fruit sets than bagged flowers. A colour change of the banner petal marking from white to pink occurred in some flowers and was a signal of floral attraction, as pollinators preferentially visited pre-change flowers. Pre-change flowers contained more pollen and were less likely to have been injured by herbivory than post-change flowers, yet the colour change was not related to pollination type or fruit set. Pollination-induced shortening of floral longevity is likely an adaptation to limited plant resources and pollinator visitation rates. For L. arcticus, this could be influenced by short growing seasons and low annual temperatures in the study area. In the face of climatic changes and shifting species phenologies, the mediation of floral longevity by pollinators could decrease temporal mismatch between plants and their pollinators, yet the many factors at play make this difficult to accurately predict.
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".