Effect of climate, anther morphology and pollination syndrome on pollen availability in Penstemon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, pollen presentation is thought to be a function of pollinator type and visitation frequency. However, despite the repeated observation that pollen presentation is influenced by flower morphology and abiotic factors, these aspects have been little studied in the wild. Here, we evaluated the effect of climate, anther morphology, and pollination syndrome on anther dehiscence time (the length of time an anther takes to fully dehisce after a flower opens). We recorded anther dehiscence time in twelve species of Penstemon including the four major anther types and the two most common pollination syndromes. We also conducted an experiment to measure the effect of humidity and temperature on anther dehiscence. We found that anther morphology was correlated with anther dehiscence time. Anthers with wide openings take the longest time to dehiscence. These results provide some support for the hypothesis that anther dehiscence time has evolved to decrease pollen wastage. Contrary to the assumption that bird-pollinated species have simultaneous pollen presentation, hummingbird-pollinated species had longer anther dehiscence time than most bee-pollinated species. The experiment revealed that high humidity and low temperature increase anther dehiscence time. Our results suggest that pollen presentation is influenced by anther morphology, pollination syndrome, and the physical environment. Optimal pollen presentation presumably maximizes conspecific pollen transfer and reduces pollen thieving.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".