Data from: Reproductive system of a mixed-mating plant responds to climate perturbation by increased selfing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How plants respond to climatic perturbations, which are forecasted to increase in frequency and intensity, is difficult to predict because of the buffering effects of plasticity. Compensatory adjustments may maintain fecundity and recruitment, or delay negative changes that are inevitable but not immediately evident. We imposed a climate perturbation of warming and drought on a mixed-mating perennial violet, testing for adjustments in growth, reproduction and mortality. We observed several plasticity-based buffering responses, such that the climatic perturbation did not alter population structure. The most substantial reproductive adjustments, however, involved selfing, with a 45% increase in self-pollination by chasmogamous flowers, a 61% increase in the number of cleistogamous flowers that produced at least one fruit and an overall 15% increase in fruit production from selfed cleistogamous flowers. Reproductive assurance thus compensated for environmental change, including low pollinator visitation that occurred independently of our climate treatment. There was also no immediate evidence for inbreeding depression. Our work indicates that plants with vegetative and reproductive flexibility may not be immediately and negatively affected by a climatic perturbation. The stabilizing effects of these reproductive responses in the long term, however, may depend on the implications of significantly elevated levels of selfing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.021 |
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".