MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092120281 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1008773107

Dispersers shape fruit diversity in <i>Ficus</i> (Moraceae)

2010· article· en· W2092120281 on OpenAlexaff
Silvia B. Lomáscolo, Douglas J. Levey, Rebecca T. Kimball, Benjamin M. Bolker, Hans T. Alborn

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAssociation for Women in ScienceRufford FoundationWildlife Conservation SocietyGarden Club of AmericaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFrugivoreBiologySeed dispersalFicusMoraceaeBiological dispersalPhylogenetic diversityMutualism (biology)BiodiversitySeed dispersal syndromeAsexual reproductionEcologyPhylogenetic treeBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seed dispersal by vertebrates is one of the most common and important plant-animal mutualisms, involving an enormous diversity of fruiting plants and frugivorous animals. Even though plant reproduction depends largely on seed dispersal, evolutionary ecologists have been unable to link co-occurring traits in fruits with differences in behavior, physiology, and morphology of fruit-eating vertebrates. Hence, the origin and maintenance of fruit diversity remains largely unexplained. Using a multivariate phylogenetic comparative test with unbiased estimates of odor and color in figs, we demonstrate that fruit traits evolve in concert and as predicted by differences in the behavior, physiology (perceptive ability) and morphology of their frugivorous seed dispersers. The correlated evolution of traits results in the convergence of general appearance of fruits in species that share disperser types. Observations at fruiting trees independently confirmed that differences in fig traits predict differences in dispersers. Taken together, these results demonstrate that differences among frugivores have shaped the evolution of fruit traits. More broadly, our results underscore the importance of mutualisms in both generating and maintaining biodiversity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations194
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207