Evolutionary and Ecological Consequences of Multiscale Variation in Pollen Receipt for Seed Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in resource availability can select for traits that reduce the negative impacts of this variability on mean fitness. Such selection may be particularly potent for seed production in flowering plants, as they often experience variation in pollen receipt among individuals and among flowers within individuals. Using analytically tractable models, we examine the optimal allocations for producing ovules, attracting pollen, and maturing seeds in deterministic and stochastic pollen environments. In deterministic environments, the optimal strategy attracts sufficient pollen to fertilize every ovule and mature every zygote into a seed. Stochastic environments select for allocations proportional to the risk of seed production being limited by zygotes or seed maturation. When producing an ovule is cheap and maturing a seed is expensive, among-plant variation selects for attracting more pollen at the expense of producing fewer ovules and having fewer resources for seed maturation. Despite this increased allocation, such populations are likely to be pollen limited. In contrast, within-plant variation generally selects for an overproduction of ovules and, to a lesser extent, pollen attraction. Such populations are likely to be resource limited and exhibit low seed-to-ovule ratios. These results highlight the importance of multiscale variation in the evolution and ecology of resource allocations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".