Pollination efficiency and pollen limitation in bistaminate vs tetrastaminate Lamiaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of bilabiate flowers in Lamiaceae has several times led to a reduction in stamen number. It is generally assumed that stamen reduction goes along with decreasing pollen production. One should, therefore, expect that bistaminate flowers have either a more efficient pollen transfer mechanism or a higher selfíng rate than tetrastaminate species to adapt to the stamen reduction. We tested this hypothesis in a community of Lamiaceae including three bistaminate and three tetrastaminate species. The results of selfing experiments, extra‐pollination, counting pollen number, and stigmatic pollen load analysis were used to calculate the autonomous selfing index, the pollen limitation index, and the pollination efficiency index. The results indicate a significantly lower pollen number in bistaminate flowers than in tetrastaminate flowers of similar anther size. Bistaminate species shared a higher selfing rate which was related to their structural adaptation to delayed selfing. In Ziziphora clinopodioides, the delayed selfing was accompanied by low pollination efficiency, and plants suffered from pollen limitation at the location studied. However, in Salvia sclarea and Salvia hypoleuca , which benefited from a relatively high pollination efficiency, no pollen limitation was observed. Our results reveal a close association between adaptive mechanisms such as increasing precision of pollen transfer and evolution of delayed selfing with stamen reduction in bistaminate Lamiaceae.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".