Hybrid intermediacy between pollination syndromes in<i>Penstemon</i>, and the role of nectar in affecting hummingbird visitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flower size dimensions, colour, and nectar quantities potentially account for differences in pollinator species between Penstemon centranthifolius (Benth.) Benth. (tubular, red, nectar-rich, hummingbird pollinated) and Penstemon spectabilis Thurber (wide, purple, nectar-poor, hymenopteran pollinated). For this study, floral characters and pollinator attraction were measured for the two species, F1hybrids, and backcrosses. Floral dimensions, nectar characters, and color spectra combined in the hybrids in a largely linear fashion, consistent with an interpretation of net additive gene expression. In other words, the changes from one pollination syndrome to another appeared to be quantitative. There were some deviations from linearity, but not so much as to obscure the linear effect. Generally, backcrosses were not more variable than F1hybrids or pure parents. Hummingbirds preferred P. centranthifolius over P. spectabilis. The strength of this preference varied by year, and the birds did not respond to hybrids in a strictly linear fashion. When there was a preference, adding nectar hourly to under-visited plants quickly changed the foraging of hummingbirds. Bees in the genus Ceratina preferred the bee-pollination syndrome of P. spectabilis.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".