Pollinator responses to variation in floral display and flower size in dioecious <i>Sagittaria latifolia</i> (Alismataceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In animal-pollinated plants with unisexual flowers, sexual dimorphism in floral traits may be the consequence of pollinator-mediated selection. Experimental investigations of the effects of variation in flower size and floral display on pollinator visitation can provide insights into the evolution of floral dimorphism in dioecious plants. Here, we investigated pollinator responses to experimental arrays of dioecious Sagittaria latifolia in which we manipulated floral display and flower size. We also examined whether there were changes in pollinator visitation with increasing dimorphism in flower size. In S. latifolia, males have larger flowers and smaller floral displays than females. Visitation by pollinators, mainly flies and bees, was more frequent for male than for female inflorescences and increased with increasing flower size, regardless of sex. The number of insect visits per flower decreased with increasing floral display in males but remained constant in females. Greater sexual dimorphism in flower size increased visits to male inflorescences but had no influence on the number of visits to female inflorescences. These results suggest that larger flower sizes would be advantageous to both females and males, and no evidence was found that females suffer from increased flower-size dimorphism. Small daily floral displays may benefit males by allowing extended flowering periods and greater opportunities for effective pollen 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".