Fig development in two Neotropical <i>Ficus</i> species, <i>Ficus</i> (subg. <i>Pharmacosycea</i>) <i>yoponensis</i> and <i>Ficus</i> (subg. <i>Spherosuke</i>) <i>colubrinae</i>: comparing rainforest and pasture trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the fragmented landscape of Los Tuxtlas, adult fig trees are found in both rainforest remnants and in pastures. Syconium (fig) development is known to vary between and within Ficus species, but it is not known whether it differs between rainforest and pasture trees. Here, we describe syconium development for two Ficus species with different life forms (free-standing and hemi-epiphytic) in two contrasting, adjacent habitats: an undisturbed rainforest and active pastures. Over three months, we monitored 15 reproductive events in Ficus (subg. Pharmacosycea) yoponensis Desv. and Ficus (subg. Spherosuke) colubrinae Standl., collecting and dissecting syconia every 3–4 days (1291 and 815 syconia per species, respectively). External and internal structural changes in the syconia are described, including foundress occurrence and the maximum duration of the receptive phase while waiting for pollinators. The duration of both the reproductive events (<8 weeks) and the developmental phases in the two species did not differ between rainforest and pasture trees and are within the lower range of time reported for other Ficus species. After pollinator exclusion, the receptive phase lasted up to four times its normal duration. Syconia were slightly larger in rainforest trees than in pasture trees, and the infestation of F. yoponensis syconia by non-pollinating insects was higher in rainforest trees.
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 | 0.001 | 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".