Bird-pollinated flowers in an evolutionary and molecular context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary shifts to bird pollination (ornithophily) have occurred independently in many lineages of flowering plants. This shift affects many floral features, particularly those responsible for the attraction of birds, deterrence of illegitimate flower visitors (particularly bees), protection from vigorous foraging by birds, and accurate placement of pollen on bird's bodies. Red coloration appears to play a major role in both bee-deterrence and bird-attraction. Other mechanisms of bird-attraction include the production of abundant dilute nectar and the provision of secondary perches (for non-hovering birds). As a result of selection for similar phenotypic traits in unrelated bird-pollinated species, a floral syndrome of ornithophily can be recognized, and this review surveys the component floral traits. The strong convergent evolution evident in bird-pollinated flowers raises a question about the nature of the genetic mechanisms underlying such transitions and whether the same gene systems are involved in most cases. As yet there is too little information to answer this question. However, some promising model systems have been developed that include closely related bee and bird-pollinated flowers, such as Ipomoea, Mimulus, and Lotus. Recent studies of floral developmental genetics have identified numerous genes important in the development of the floral phenotype, which are also potential candidates for involvement in shifts between bee-pollination and bird pollination. As more whole-genome information becomes available, progress should be rapid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".