Plant-size and fruit-position effects on reproductive allocation in <i>Alliaria petiolata</i> (Brassicaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the development of ovules and components of reproductive yield as they related to plant size and fruit position within plants of Alliaria petiolata (M. Bieb.) Cavara and Grande from three sites. We found that both factors affected fruit and seed production, and patterns of ovule fate. Larger plants were more fecund than their smaller counterparts, while proximally positioned flowers within an inflorescence produced more seeds. Maternal investment was regulated according to plant mass at two levels: among fruits (small plants had significantly lower fruit-set than did large plants), and within fruits (small plants had significantly fewer ovules and significantly higher proportions of aborted ovules per fruit than did large plants). All absolute measures of reproduction had positive linear relationships with plant size, but a threshold size for flowering was not found. Most proportional measures of reproduction were independent of plant size. Small plants produced the same relative proportions of total seed number and total seed mass per unit plant dry mass as large plants. Therefore, proportional reproductive allocation did not vary with plant size. However, small plants produced proportionately more flowers per unit dry mass. Small plants may be maximizing their overall fitness through increased allocation to male function (flower production).Key words: Alliaria petiolata, plant-size effects, fruit-position effects, reproductive allocation, patterns of ovule abortion, seed maturation.
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".