MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EVOLUTION OF FLORAL DISPLAY IN EICHHORNIA PANICULATA (PONTEDERIACEAE): DIRECT AND CORRELATED RESPONSES TO SELECTION ON FLOWER SIZE AND NUMBER

2000· article· en· W2172651767 on OpenAlex
Anne C. Worley, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHeritabilityGenetic correlationSelection (genetic algorithm)InflorescenceRestricted maximum likelihoodBotanyDirectional selectionGenetic variationHorticultureStatisticsMaximum likelihoodEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGeneMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trade-offs between flower size and number seem likely to influence the evolution of floral display and are an important assumption of several theoretical models. We assessed floral trade-offs by imposing two generations of selection on flower size and number in a greenhouse population of bee-pollinated Eichhornia paniculata. We established a control line and two replicate selection lines of 100 plants each for large flowers (S+), small flowers (S-), and many flowers per inflorescence (N+). We compared realized heritabilities and genetic correlations with estimates based on restricted-maximum-likelihood (REML) analysis of pedigrees. Responses to selection confirmed REML heritability estimates (flower size, h2 = 0.48; daily flower number, h2 = 0.10; total flower number, h2 = 0.23). Differences in nectar, pollen, and ovule production between S+ and S- lines supported an overall divergence in investment per flower. Both realized and REML estimates of the genetic correlation between daily and total flower number were r = 1.0. However, correlated responses to selection were inconsistent in their support of a trade-off. In both S- lines, correlated increases in flower number indicated a genetic correlation of r = -0.6 between flower size and number. In contrast, correlated responses in N+ and S+ lines were not significant, although flower size decreased in one N+ line. In addition, REML estimates of genetic correlations between flower size and number were positive, and did not differ from zero when variation in leaf area and age at first flowering were taken into account. These results likely reflect the combined effects of variation in genes controlling the resources available for flowering and genes with opposing effects on flower size and number. Our results suggest that the short-term evolution of floral display is not necessarily constrained by trade-offs between flower size and number, as is often assumed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it