Inflorescences of Cuscuta (Convolvulaceae): Diversity, evolution and relationships with breeding systems and fruit dehiscence modes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuscuta (dodder) includes ca. 200 species of plant obligate stem parasites with enormous ecological and economical significance. Inflorescences have been historically used in Cuscuta for species descriptions and identification keys, but no comprehensive study exists to date. The main objectives of this study were to survey the diversity and evolution of inflorescences and to uncover their possible form-function relationships. The inflorescence architecture of 132 Cuscuta taxa was analysed using herbarium specimens and eight species were grown to study their inflorescence development. Inflorescence traits were mapped into a genus phylogeny obtained from a combined analysis of nuclear ITS and plastid trnL-F sequences. To test the hypothesis that inflorescence architecture is connected to sexual reproduction, correlations between inflorescence traits (using Principal Components), sexual reproductive traits (pollen/ovule ratios, corolla length and diameter), fruit charaters (fruit length and width), and the modes of dehiscence were analyzed. Based on their development, three major types of inflorescences were observed: "Cuscuta type", a simple, monochasial scorpioid cyme; "Monogynella type", a compound monochasial scorpioid cymes with the longest primary axes having prolonged vegetative growth and giving the appearance of thyrses; and "Grammica type", a compound monochasial scorpiod cymes with up to five orders of axes. Maximum likelihood analyses suggested Monogynella as the ancestral type, while Cuscuta and Grammica were derived. Overall, the total length of axes exhibited a reduction trend throughout the genus evolution, but it was not correlated with the pedicels length. Inflorescences with similar architectures may exhibit contrasting pollen-ovule ratios. Positive significant correlations were noted between the size of the flower traits and pollen-ovule ratios. Several modes of dehiscence had statistically significant different total axes lengths, suggesting that the infructescence architecture is connected to the modes of dehiscence in Cuscuta and therefore seed dispersal.
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 | 0.002 | 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".