Convergent recruitment of new pollinators is triggered by independent hybridization events in<i>Narcissus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization can generate new species if some degree of isolation prevents gene flow between the hybrids and their progenitors. The recruitment of novel pollinators by hybrids has been hypothesized to be one way in which such reproductive isolation can be achieved. We tested whether pollinators contributed to isolation between two natural Narcissus hybrids and their progenitors using pollination experiments, observations, plus morphological and floral-volatile measurements. These hybrids share the same maternal but different paternal progenitors. We found that only the hybrids were visited by and pollinated by ants. The two hybrids exceeded their progenitors in floral-tube aperture size and nectar production. The emission of floral volatiles by hybrid plants was not only equal to or higher than the progenitor species, but also contained some new compounds not produced by the progenitors. The recruitment of ants as novel pollinators in the hybrids involved the combination of increased nectar secretion and the production of novel floral scent compounds. A breakdown of chemical defence against ants may also be involved. This study provides support for the hypothesis that the recruitment of novel pollinators can contribute to reproductive isolation between hybrids and their progenitors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".