‘Anti-bee’ and ‘pro-bird’ changes during the evolution of hummingbird pollination in <i>Penstemon</i> flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floral phenotypes may be as much the result of selection for avoidance of some animal visitors as selection for improving the interaction with better pollinators. When specializing on hummingbird-pollination, Penstemon flowers may have evolved to improve the morphological fit between bird and flower, or to exclude less-efficient bees, or both. We hypothesized how such selection might work on four floral characters that affect the mechanics of pollen transfer: anther/stigma exsertion, presence of a lower corolla lip, width of the corolla tube, and angle of flower inclination. We surgically modified bee-pollinated P. strictus flowers changing one trait at a time to make them resemble hummingbird-pollinated P. barbatus flowers, and measured pollen transfer by bumblebees and hummingbirds. Results suggest that, apart from 'pro-bird' adaptations, specific 'anti-bee' adaptations have been important in shaping hummingbird-flowers. Moreover, some trait changes may have been selected for only if changing in concert with other traits.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".