Seasonal variation in the mating system of a selfing annual with large floral displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Flowering plants display considerable variation in mating system, specifically the relative frequency of cross- and self-fertilization. The majority of estimates of outcrossing rate do not account for temporal variation, particularly during the flowering season. Here, we investigated seasonal variation in mating and fertility in Incarvillea sinensis (Bignoniaceae), an annual with showy, insect-pollinated, 'one-day' flowers capable of delayed selfing. We examined the influence of several biotic and abiotic environmental factors on day-to-day variation in fruit set, seed set and patterns of mating. METHODS: We recorded daily flower number and pollinator abundance in nine 3 × 3-m patches in a population at Mu Us Sand land, Inner Mongolia, China. From marked flowers we collected data on daily fruit and seed set and estimated outcrossing rate and biparental inbreeding using six microsatellite loci and 172 open-pollinated families throughout the flowering period. KEY RESULTS: Flower density increased significantly over most of the 50-d flowering season, but was associated with a decline in levels of pollinator service by bees, particularly on windy days. Fruit and seed set declined over time, especially during the latter third of the flowering period. Multilocus estimates of outcrossing rate were obtained using two methods (the programs MLTR and BORICE) and both indicated high selfing rates of ∼80 %. There was evidence for a significant increase in levels of selfing as the flowering season progressed and pollinator visitation declined. Biparental inbreeding also declined significantly as the flowering season progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal variation in outcrossing rates may be a common feature of the mating biology of annual, insect-pollinated plants of harsh environments but our study is the first to examine seasonal mating-system dynamics in this context. Despite having large flowers and showy floral displays, I. sinensis attracted relatively few pollinators. Delayed selfing by corolla dragging largely explains the occurrence of mixed mating in I. sinensis, and this mode of self-fertilization probably functions to promote reproductive assurance when pollinator service is limited by windy environmental conditions and competition from co-occurring flowering plants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".