The effect of mammalian herbivory on inflorescence architecture in ornithophilous <i>Babiana</i> (Iridaceae): Implications for the evolution of a bird perch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: The showiness of floral displays is usually explained as an adaptation to attract pollinators. However, selection for less attractive displays imposed by non-pollinating agents, particularly herbivores, may balance pollinator-driven selection for highly visible inflorescences. We investigated whether inflorescence architecture, particularly the unusual ground-level flowering associated with a specialized bird perch in Babiana ringens may have originated, in part, as an adaptive response to mammalian herbivory. METHODS: We measured levels of herbivory by antelope in populations of B. hirsuta, the putative sister species of B. ringens, which possesses the likely ancestral form of inflorescence architecture. To test for position-dependent effects of herbivory on flowers, we compared the herbivory rates and seed production of manipulated inflorescences in a field experiment. We predicted that flowers at the base of inflorescences would suffer less herbivory than those in apical positions. RESULTS: We found herbivore damage to flowers in 50% of naturally occurring B. hirsuta plants. Manipulated inflorescences with only basal flowers, and consequently similar inflorescence architecture to B. ringens, experienced significantly lower herbivory and higher seed set than inflorescences manipulated to have only apical flowers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that position-dependent herbivory on inflorescences could have played a role in the evolution of inflorescence design. More specifically, position-dependent herbivory may have selected for the loss of apical flowers. Position-dependent herbivory may have contributed toward the evolution of a naked inflorescence axis, a structure that characterizes B. ringens and functions as a bird perch facilitating cross-pollination by sunbirds.
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".