A phylogenetic analysis of pollination mode and the evolution of dichogamy in angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dichogamy, the temporal separation of male and female function, is widespread among angiosperms, yet its causes and consequences are not well understood. Two forms of dichogamy exist: protandry, in which pollen dispersal precedes stigma receptivity, and protogyny, in which the reverse occurs. Species-level comparative studies show that protandrous species tend to be pollinated by bees or flies, whereas protogynous species tend to be windor beetle-pollinated. This suggests a functional role for pollinators in the evolution of dichogamy. We mapped dichogamy and pollination characters onto a phylogeny of angiosperm species. Using the program Discrete, two models of evolutionary change (one allowing only for independent evolution and the other allowing correlated evolution of the two traits) were fit to the phylogeny to test for correlations. Log-likelihood ratio tests and Monte Carlo simulations support a correlated model for the evolution of the type of dichogamy and the form of pollination, demonstrating that the previously reported correlations are robust to phylogenetic correction. However, pollination mode was not found to affect transitions between protandry and protogyny. Rather, an examination of transition rates revealed that the rate of transitions between biotic and abiotic pollination depends on whether a species is protandrous or protogynous. Additionally, we found more support for a role of pollination in the evolution of protogyny from non-protogyny than in the evolution of protandry from non-protandry. This study calls into question some previous findings regarding the role of pollinators in the evolution of dichogamy.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".