Pollinator visitation patterns strongly influence among-flower variation in selfing rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adjacent flowers on Mimulus ringens floral displays often vary markedly in selfing rate. We hypothesized that this fine-scale variation in mating system reflects the tendency of bumble-bee pollinators to probe several flowers consecutively on multiflower displays. When a pollinator approaches a display, the first flower probed is likely to receive substantial outcross pollen. However, since pollen carryover in this species is limited, receipt of self pollen should increase rapidly for later flowers. Here the first direct experimental test of this hypothesis is described. METHODS: In order to link floral visitation sequences with selfing rates of individual flowers, replicate linear arrays were established, each composed of plants with unique genetic markers. This facilitated unambiguous assignment of paternity to all sampled progeny. A single wild bumble-bee was permitted to forage on each linear array, recording the order of floral visits on each display. Once fruits had matured, 120 fruits were harvested (four flowers from each of five floral displays in each of six arrays). Twenty-five seedlings from each fruit were genotyped and paternity was unambiguously assigned to all 3000 genotyped progeny. KEY RESULTS: The order of pollinator probes on Mimulus floral displays strongly and significantly influenced selfing rates of individual fruits. Mean selfing rates increased from 21 % for initial probes to 78 % for the fourth flower probed on each display. CONCLUSIONS: Striking among-flower differences in selfing rate result from increased deposition of geitonogamous (among-flower, within-display) self pollen as bumble-bees probe consecutive flowers on each floral display. The resulting heterogeneity in the genetic composition of sibships may influence seedling competition and the expression of inbreeding depression.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".