Evidence of between-population differences in natural selection on extra-floral nectaries of the shrub <i>Anemopaegma album</i> (Bignoniaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extra-floral nectaries (EFNs) are thought to represent protective adaptations against herbivory, but studies on the evolutionary ecology of EFNs have seldom been conducted. Here we investigate the patterns of natural selection and genetic variation in EFN traits in two wild populations of Anemopaegma album Mart. ex DC. (Bignoniaceae) that have been previously described as contrasting EFN – ant adapted localities in the Neotropical savanna (Cristália and Grão Mogol). In each population, four EFN descriptors, foliar damage, and reproductive success variables were measured per plant (100–120 plants per population). To estimate the heritability of EFN traits, we crossed reproductive plants in the field, and grew offspring plants in a common garden. The results showed that ant assemblages differed between populations, as did the range of foliar herbivory. Genetic variation and positive phenotypic selection in EFN abundance were only detected in the Cristália population, in which plants with more EFNs were more likely to reproduce. An evaluation of putative causal links conducted by path analysis corroborated the existence of phenotypic selection on EFNs, which was mediated by the herbivory process in the Cristália population. While EFNs could be currently under selection in Cristália, it is possible that past selection may have driven EFN traits to become locally adapted to the local ant assemblage in the Grão Mogol population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".