MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177534865 · doi:10.1111/njb.03014

Spatial variation in scent emission within flowers

2021· article· en· W3177534865 on OpenAlexaff
Yedra García, Magne Friberg, Amy L. Parachnowitsch

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Journal of Botany · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of FrederictonUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPollinatorPetalNectarPollinationBotanyFlorEcologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floral scent is considered an important long‐distance signal that attracts pollinators, but also has been suggested to function at shorter distances such as within‐flower nectar guides or as a defense against antagonists. Indeed, in some species floral scent production and emission show spatial patterns of variation within flowers, as certain compounds are exclusively emitted from specific floral tissues. In other species, the different volatile organic compounds that constitute the floral bouquet are emitted evenly from the entire flower. Here, we summarize the current evidence on floral scent variation within flowers by combining a literature review of published data on tissue‐level floral scent variation (41 species) with floral scent dissections (17 species). For each species, we recorded the total number of volatile compounds separately and grouped in major chemical classes. To facilitate comparisons across diverse species, we compared volatiles emitted by 1) the whole flower, 2) the visual floral tissues (i.e. petals and colored structures), 3) non‐visual floral tissues (i.e. green parts and reproductive structures), as well as 4) the compounds emitted by both visual and non‐visual tissues. Results show that floral scent variation is frequent, but by no means ubiquitous, occurring in species from distantly related groups. We discuss the two main functional hypotheses promoting floral scent variation within flowers, i.e. as a pollinator attractant at short‐distances or a defensive function against antagonists, together with non‐functional hypotheses (e.g. pleiotropic effects, ecological costs). We point out further directions on this topic and suggest experimental approaches testing the attractiveness of compounds emitted by different floral parts alone and in combination with other floral signals. Our synthesis provides a foundation for future studies on the functional ecology of floral scent and reinforces the idea of high complexity in floral chemical signals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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