Pollinators, Herbivores, and the Maintenance of Flower Color Variation: A Case Study with<i>Lobelia siphilitica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conflicting selection by pollinators and herbivores is thought to be an important mechanism maintaining variation in flower color within plant populations. However, evidence for this mechanism is lacking because selection and the agents of selection on flower color have rarely been estimated. We estimated selection by pollinators and a predispersal seed predator on the three fundamental components of color (brightness, chroma, and hue) of Lobelia siphilitica flowers. We compared phenotypic selection on flowers of supplemental hand- versus open-pollinated plants to infer whether pollinators were an agent of selection on color. We compared attacked and unattacked plants to infer whether the seed predator was an agent of selection on color. Selection on brightness, but not chroma or hue, differed significantly between both pollination treatments and predation categories. Both pollinators and the seed predator exerted selection for less bright flowers, suggesting that they do not cause conflicting selection on flower color. However, we also detected phenotypic selection for brighter flowers that was not caused by pollinators or by the seed predator. Consequently, pollinators and herbivores are not sufficient to generate conflicting selection that could contribute to the maintenance of flower color variation in L. siphilitica.
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 | 0.001 | 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".