Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29294036›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental botany2018

Novel computed tomography-based tools reliably quantify plant reproductive investment.

Y M Staedler, T Kreisberger, S Manafzadeh, M Chartier, S Handschuh, S Pamperl, S Sontag, O Paun, J Schönenberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental botany, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The economy of pollen dispersal in flowering plants.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. JXB at SEB Florence 2018.Journal of experimental botany · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Y M StaedlerDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
T KreisbergerDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
S ManafzadehDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
M ChartierDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
S HandschuhVetCORE - Facility for Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
S PamperlDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
S SontagDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
O PaunDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.
J SchönenbergerDepartment of Botany and Biodiversity Research, Division of Structural and Functional Botany, University of Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The flower is a bisexual reproductive unit where both genders compete for resources. Counting pollen and ovules in flowers is essential to understand how much is invested in each gender. Classical methods to count very numerous pollen grains and ovules are inefficient when pollen grains are tightly aggregated, and when fertilization rates of ovules are unknown. In this study we have therefore developed novel counting techniques based on computed tomography. In order to demonstrate the potential of our methods in very difficult cases, we counted pollen and ovules across inflorescences of deceptive and rewarding species of European orchids, which possess both very large numbers of pollen grains (tightly aggregated) and ovules. Pollen counts did not significantly vary across inflorescences and pollination strategies, whereas deceptive flowers had significantly more ovules than rewarding flowers. The within-inflorescence variance of pollen-to-ovule ratios in rewarding flowers was four times higher than in deceptive flowers, possibly demonstrating differences in the constraints acting on both pollination strategies. We demonstrate the inaccuracies and limitations of previously established methods, and the broad applicability of our new techniques: they allow measurement of reproductive investment without restriction on object number or aggregation, and without specimen destruction.

Indexed as

InflorescenceOrchidaceaeOvulePollenReproductionTomography, X-Ray ComputedDeceptive orchidsmachine countingmicro computed tomographyovule countpollen countpollination

Identifiers

PMID29294036
PMCPMC5853293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.