MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013159354 · doi:10.1002/ajb2.1453

Influence of local density and sex ratio on pollination in an ambophilous flowering plant

2020· article· en· W3013159354 on OpenAlexafffund
David Timerman, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyForagingPollinatorPollinationAnemophilySex ratioPollenMatingGeneralist and specialist speciesSexual dimorphismDensity ratioOptimal foraging theorySex allocationEcologyBotanyZoologyDemographyOffspringPopulationHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE: Variation in local density and sex ratio in dioecious plants can affect mating success through the actions of pollen vectors, principally generalist insects or wind. Increased density and male-biased sex ratios should promote pollen transfer and seed production, but their combined effects have not been investigated for ambophilous species, which exhibit both insect and wind pollination. METHODS: We manipulated density (low vs. high) and sex ratio (1:1 vs. 3:1 male-biased) in arrays of dioecious ambophilous Thalictrum pubescens. We quantified visitation rates and foraging times to examine whether pollinators exhibited sex-specific preferences and determined the seed set of arrays. RESULTS: Pollinators visited more plants per foraging bout at high than low density. Visitation rates and foraging times of visitors were greater for male than for female plants but did not depend on the density or sex ratio of arrays. However, whereas solitary bees displayed a strong preference for males, hover flies were indifferent to plant sex phenotype. Solitary bees also visited significantly more plants per foraging bout than hover flies. There was a significant interaction between density and sex ratio on seed set. At low density, seed set was greater for 3:1 than for 1:1 arrays, but at high density the opposite pattern occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The demographic factors we investigated had complex influences on pollinator foraging behavior and patterns of seed set. Several factors may explain our results, including the influence of density and sex ratio on pollen export from arrays, grooming by pollinators, and the contribution of wind pollination.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207