Cardenolides in nectar may be more than a consequence of allocation to other plant parts: a phylogenetic study of<i><scp>A</scp>sclepias</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The primary function of secondary plant metabolites is thought to be defence against herbivores. The frequent occurrence of these same noxious compounds in floral nectar, which functions primarily to attract pollinators, has been seen as paradoxical. Although these compounds may have an adaptive purpose in nectar, they may also occur as a nonadaptive consequence of chemical defence in other plant parts. If nectar chemistry reflects physiological constraints or passive leakage from other tissues, we expect that the identity and relative concentration of nectar cardenolides to be correlated with those of other plant parts; in contrast, discordant distributions of compounds in nectar and other tissues may suggest adaptive roles in nectar. We compared the concentrations and identities of cardenolides in the nectar, leaves and flowers of 12 species from a monophyletic clade ofAsclepias. To measure putative toxicity of nectar cardenolides, we then examined the effects of a standard cardenolide (digoxin) on the behaviour of bumblebees, a common generalist pollinator ofAsclepias. We found that the average cardenolide concentrations in nectar, leaves and flowers of the 12Asclepiasspecies were positively correlated as predicted by nonadaptive hypotheses. However, significant differences in the identities and concentrations of individual cardenolides between nectar and leaves suggest that the production or allocation of cardenolides may be independently regulated at each plant part. In addition, cardenolide concentrations in leaves and nectar exhibited no phylogenetic signal. Surprisingly, bumblebees did not demonstrate an aversion to digoxin‐rich nectar, which may indicate that nectar cardenolides have little effect on pollination. Although the idea that discordant patterns of secondary metabolites across tissue types may signal adaptive functions is attractive, there is evidence to suggest constraint contributes to nectar secondary chemistry. Further work testing the ecological impacts of such patterns will be critical in determining the functional significance of nectar cardenolides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".