Going to great lengths: selection for long corolla tubes in an extremely specialized bat–flower mutualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a hypothesis that has remained controversial since its inception, Darwin suggested that long-tubed flowers and long-tongued pollinators evolved together in a coevolutionary race, with each selecting for increasing length in the other. Although the selective pressures that flowers impose on tongue length are relatively straightforward, in that longer tongues allow access to more nectar, selective pressures that pollinators impose on flower length are less clear. Here, we test for such selective pressures in the highly specialized mutualism between the nectar bat Anoura fistulata, which can extend its tongue twice as far as other nectar bats, and Centropogon nigricans, which has flowers of a similar length (8-9 cm). We used flight cage experiments to examine the effects of artificially manipulated flower lengths on (i) bat behaviour and (ii) pollen transfer. Increased length produced longer visits, but did not affect the force bats applied during visits. In the second experiment, flower length increased both the male and female components of flower function: long male flowers delivered more pollen grains and long female flowers received more pollen grains. However, pollen transfer was not correlated with visit duration, so the mechanism behind differences in pollen transfer remains unclear. By demonstrating that bats select for increasing flower length, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that A. fistulata evolved its remarkable tongue in a coevolutionary race with long-tubed flowers similar to that envisioned by Darwin.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".