PLASTICITY OF PHYSIOOLGY IN<i>LOBELIA</i>: TESTING FOR ADAPTATION AND CONSTRAINT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenotypic plasticity is thought to be a major mechanism allowing sessile organisms such as plants to adapt to environmental heterogeneity. However, the adaptive value of many common plastic responses has not been tested by linking these responses to fitness. Even when plasticity is adaptive, costs of plasticity, such as the energy necessary to maintain regulatory pathways for plastic responses, may constrain its evolution. We used a greenhouse experiment to test whether plastic physiological responses to soil water availability (wet vs. dry conditions) were adaptive and/or costly in the congeneric wildflowers Lobelia cardinalis and L. siphilitica. Eight physiological traits related to carbon and water uptake were measured. Specific leaf area (SLA), photosynthetic rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), and photosynthetic capacity (Amax) responded plastically to soil water availability in L. cardinalis. Plasticity in Amax was maladaptive, plasticity in A and g(s) was adaptive, and plasticity in SLA was adaptively neutral. The nature of adaptive plasticity in L. cardinalis, however, differed from previous studies. Lobelia cardinalis plants with more conservative water use, characterized by lower g(s), did not have higher fitness under drought conditions. Instead, well-watered L. cardinalis that had higher g(s) had higher fitness. Only Amax responded plastically to drought in L. siphilitica, and this response was adaptively neutral. We detected no costs of plasticity for any physiological trait in either L. cardinalis or L. siphilitica, suggesting that the evolution of plasticity in these traits would not be constrained by costs. Physiological responses to drought in plants are presumed to be adaptive, but our data suggest that much of this plasticity can be adaptively neutral or maladaptive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".