Variation in pollen limitation and floral parasitism across a mating system transition in a Pacific coastal dune plant: evolutionary causes or ecological consequences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evolutionary transitions from outcrossing to self-fertilization are thought to occur because selfing provides reproductive assurance when pollinators or mates are scarce, but they could also occur via selection to reduce floral vulnerability to herbivores. This study investigated geographic covariation between floral morphology, fruit set, pollen limitation and florivory across the geographic range of Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia, a Pacific coastal dune endemic that varies strikingly in flower size and mating system. METHODS: Fruit set was quantified in 75 populations, and in 41 of these floral herbivory by larvae of a specialized moth (Mompha sp.) that consumes anthers in developing buds was also quantified. Experimental pollen supplementation was performed to quantify pollen limitation in three large-flowered, outcrossing and two small-flowered, selfing populations. These parameters were also compared between large- and small-flowered phenotypes within three mixed populations. KEY RESULTS: Fruit set was much lower in large-flowered populations, and also much lower among large- than small-flowered plants within populations. Pollen supplementation increased per flower seed production in large-flowered but not small-flowered populations, but fruit set was not pollen limited. Hence inadequate pollination cannot account for the low fruit set of large-flowered plants. Floral herbivory was much more frequent in large-flowered populations and correlated negatively with fruit set. However, florivores did not preferentially attack large-flowered plants in three large-flowered populations or in two of three mixed populations. CONCLUSIONS: Selfing alleviated pollen limitation of seeds per fruit, but florivory better explains the marked variation in fruit set. Although florivory was more frequent in large-flowered populations, large-flowered individuals were not generally more vulnerable within populations. Rather than a causative selective factor, reduced florivory in small-flowered, selfing populations is probably an ecological consequence of mating system differentiation, with potentially significant effects on population demography and biotic interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".