Nectary and elaiophore work together in flowers of <i>Xylopia aromatica</i> (Annonaceae): structure indicates a role in pollination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secretory structures that produce floral rewards have rarely been reported for Annonaceae. We identified a glandular region in Xylopia aromatica (Lam.) Mart., which consisted of a nectary and an elaiophore. This study aimed to describe the structure and secretory process of these glandular structures, which are highly correlated with the reproductive biology of this species. Anatomical and ultrastructural studies were performed prior to and during anthesis, focusing on the channel and pollination chamber. The floral nectary is placed in the roof of the chamber. It has a secretory epidermis and subglandular parenchyma and is immediately contiguous with the elaiophore, a portion that delimits the pollination channel and produces lipids. The release of nectar begins in the pistillate phase, while the elaiophore starts secreting prior to anthesis, both of which finishing during the staminate phase. Lipids form a sticky layer covering the channel surface, which provides access to the chamber. The cell machinery of the epidermis for both nectary and elaiophore is highly correlated with the exudates, despite their highly similar structure. Nectar attracts pollinators to the pollination chamber, whereas lipids seem to act in pollen adhesion to the body of pollinators. Both of exudates appear to act in complementary ways during 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 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".