Heliotropism in <i>Trillium grandiflorum</i> provides increased reproductive success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heliotropism of flowers is thought to provide a reproductive advantage to individuals of many species; yet, there are few clear demonstrations of a fitness advantage provided by heliotropism, most of which are almost completely restricted to plants from the arctic or alpine regions where a heat gain provides an advantage to the plants. In this study, we report heliotropism in the white trillium, an early spring blooming species from the temperate forests of eastern North America. The white trillium shows horizontal seasonal heliotropism with flowers mainly facing south throughout the summer, but it also exhibits daily horizontal and vertical heliotropism with the orientation of the flower tracking the sun during the day. The study of 479 tethered plants indicated that seasonal heliotropism provides a reproductive advantage to the white trillium, with south-facing individuals showing a 12% increase in fertilized ovules compared to north-facing plants. The ecology of this long-lived perennial is, in many aspects, similar to that of alpine and arctic heliotropic species. Indeed, white trilliums are insect-pollinated and they flower when the weather is cold, before the trees leaf out. This suggests that there are potentially more species for which heliotropism is advantageous amongst early spring flowers from the temperate forest.
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".