Floral Behaviour, Flowering Phenology and Fruit Production of Passion Fruit (Passiflora Species) in East Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passiflora species generally known as passion fruit may well be the most fascinating plant of the tropics. This plant is known to be self-incompatible in its native environment and it affects the fruit production. Extend of passion fruit set is highly dependent on effective pollinators such as carpenter bees and honey bees. However, in East Malaysia, there was good fruit sets, although lesser number of pollinators visiting the farm or sometimes absence. It is important therefore, to study the reproduction mechanisms of Passiflora plants, because this factor reflect the quantity of the fruit produced. The present studies aim therefore to evaluate the floral behaviours, reproductive mechanism and fruit production of locally grown Passiflora species. Based on the observations, Passiflora species was classified as “steadystate species” that exhibit constant production of few flowers, each day lasting only one day. All species have the ability to adapt to the local condition where plants continuously grew and produced flowers and fruits all the year around. The flowering and fruiting were not synchronized and showed a marked phenological pattern with species. Good fruit yields were observed throughout the year which was attributed to Passiflora species ability for self-pollination, involving the movement of styles to lead the stigma faced the anthers during flower blooming. This is an important phenomenon in order to reduce the distance between the stigma and anther, aid for pollination and provided reproductive assurance to the species. As P. edulis growing in its native environment is reported to be self-incompatible and have become selfcompatible in the present study; showed that evolution of these features is an important factor for its adaptability and survivability, thus crucial to P. edulis propagation optimally in local conditions.
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".