Effect of coflowering <i>Mimulus ringens</i> on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious <i>Lobelia siphilitica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although interspecific competition for pollination is hypothesized to result in divergence in floral traits (i.e., character displacement), few studies have tested whether selection on these traits differs in the presence and absence of a competitor for pollination. We measured phenotypic selection on floral traits of Lobelia siphilitica L. growing in the presence and absence of Mimulus ringens L., a potential competitor for pollination. Because L. siphilitica is gynodioecious, we estimated selection separately for female and hermaphrodite plants. The presence of M. ringens did not decrease seed set of L. siphilitica. However, the presence of M. ringens did affect selection on daily display size of female L. siphilitica; there was significant selection for smaller daily displays in the absence of M. ringens, but nonsignificant selection for larger displays in the presence of M. ringens. In addition, selection on flower colour did not differ in the presence and absence of M. ringens, but did differ between female and hermaphrodite L. siphilitica. Consequently, our results suggest that the evolution of floral traits in L. siphilitica, but not the evolution of sexual dimorphism in these traits, can be affected by interactions for pollination with M. ringens.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".