Competition Drives Specialization in Pollination Systems through Costs to Male Fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specialization in pollination systems played a central role in angiosperm diversification, yet the evolution of specialization remains poorly understood. Competition through interspecific pollen transfer may select for specialization through costs to male fitness (pollen lost to heterospecific flowers) or female fitness (heterospecific pollen deposited on stigmas). Previous theoretical treatments of pollination focused solely on seed set, thus overlooking male fitness. Here we use individual-based models that explicitly track pollen fates to explore how competition affects the evolution of specialization. Results show that plants specialize on different pollinators when visit rates are high enough to remove most pollen from anthers; this increases male fitness by minimizing pollen loss to foreign flowers. At low visitation, plants generalize, which minimizes pollen left undispersed in anthers. A model variant in which plants can also evolve differences in sex allocation (pollen/ovule production) produces similar patterns of specialization. At low visitation, plants generalize and allocate more to female function. At high visitation, plants specialize and allocate equally to both sexes (in line with sex-allocation theory). This study demonstrates that floral specialization can be driven by selection through male function alone and more generally highlights the importance of community context in the ecology and evolution of pollination systems.
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".