High‐elevation range limit of an annual herb is neither caused nor reinforced by declining pollinator service
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Summary Pollination failure has been proposed to be an important determinant of plant species’ range limits if pollinator activity declines along an environmental gradient, directly limiting plant populations, or if plant populations decline along an environmental gradient and subsequently fail to attract sufficient visitation. Both mechanisms predict reduced pollinator visitation, increased pollen limitation and decreased seed production towards range limits, and the first additionally predicts declining pollinator abundance independent of any particular plant species. However, many self‐compatible species have some capacity for autonomous self‐fertilization, which may buffer reproductive success from declining pollinator visitation if inbreeding depression is mild. Thus pollinator‐mediated limits may also predict selection for reduced reliance on pollinators towards range limits. We tested these predictions towards the high‐elevation limit of the self‐compatible, bumblebee ( Bombus )‐pollinated Rhinanthus minor, along two elevation transects in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. Bombus abundance was highest at mid‐ (range‐centre) and high‐elevation (range limit) sites, so declining pollinator abundance is unlikely to impose high‐elevation limits for bumblebee‐pollinated species in this area. Flowers per plant and per m 2 declined at upper range limits, potentially rendering edge populations less attractive. However, visitation rate did not decline towards the range limit at either transect. Stigmatic pollen receipt declined with increasing elevation, but seed set did not, nor did outcross pollen supplementation increase seed set at any site. Investment in floral attractiveness (corolla area/ovary area) increased towards range limits, but capacity for high‐quality autonomous seed set and adult inbreeding coefficients inferred from genetic markers were uniformly high, suggesting frequent self‐fertilization and weak inbreeding depression throughout the range. Synthesis . We found no evidence for pollination failure towards the upper range limit of R. minor . Moreover, unlike some species with a capacity for autogamy, autonomous selfing makes a major contribution to R. minor 's mating system and demography, and likely buffers reproductive success from stochasticity in pollination. Continued investment in floral attractiveness despite high autonomous selfing suggests some evolutionary benefit to pollinator‐mediated outcrossing, rather than ecological benefits via increasing seed quantity or quality. Given that >50% of angiosperms are self‐compatible, the reproductive assurance provided by selfing may reduce the importance of pollination in limiting plant distributions compared to other biotic interactions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».