Anther Evolution: Pollen Presentation Strategies When Pollinators Differ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male-male competition in plants is thought to exert selection on flower morphology and on the temporal presentation of pollen. Theory suggests that a plant's pollen dosing strategy should evolve to match the abundance and pollen transfer efficiency of its pollinators. Simultaneous pollen presentation should be favored when pollinators are infrequent or efficient at delivering the pollen they remove, whereas gradual dosing should optimize delivery by frequent and wasteful pollinators. Among Penstemon and Keckiella species, anthers vary in ways that affect pollen release, and the morphology of dried anthers reliably indicates how they dispense pollen. In these genera, hummingbird pollination has evolved repeatedly from hymenopteran pollination. Pollen production does not change with evolutionary shifts between pollinators. We show that after we control for phylogeny, hymenopteran-adapted species present their pollen more gradually than hummingbird-adapted relatives. In a species pair that seemed to defy the pattern, the rhythm of anther maturation produced an equivalent dosing effect. These results accord with previous findings that hummingbirds can be more efficient than bees at delivering pollen.
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".