MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531305682 · doi:10.1002/ecm.1235

The mating consequences of rewarding vs. deceptive pollination systems: Is there a quantity–quality trade‐off?

2016· article· en· W2531305682 on OpenAlexafffund
Nina Hobbhahn, Steven D. Johnson, Lawrence D. Harder

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPollinatorPollinationBiologyPollenZoophilyPollen sourceNectarOutcrossingMatingBiological dispersalMating systemEcologyBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plant mating commonly involves quality–quantity trade‐offs. Such a trade‐off features explicitly in the cross‐promotion hypothesis for the evolution of pollination by deceit. According to this hypothesis, rewardlessness enhances mating quality by altering pollinator behavior in ways that reduce self‐pollination and increase outcrossing, thus compensating for the reduced pollen dispersal and seed production resulting from lack of reinforcement of pollinator visitation behavior. The high prevalence of rewardlessness in orchids suggests that deceit pollination conveys benefits that outweigh the fecundity advantages of reward production. We test the cross‐promotion hypothesis in Disa, an African orchid genus in which nectar rewards have evolved repeatedly from rewardless ancestors. To address this hypothesis directly, we quantified pollinator behavior and the associated dispersal of stained pollen for four nectar‐producing (N+) and 10 nectarless (N−) species. We also assessed more extensive, if less direct, evidence from a survey of lifetime pollination outcomes for 15 N+ and 32 N− species. Pollinators visited N+ species more frequently and visited 1.5 times more flowers per inflorescence than in N− species. In contrast, pollinators skipped more conspecific plants between visits to donor and recipient plants when visiting N− species than when visiting N+ species. Over floral lifetimes, both N− and N+ species exhibited similar overall pollen‐transfer efficiency (8.2%) and did not differ in the overall fractions of pollen involved in self‐pollination (26% of all pollen deposited), geitonogamy (82% of all self‐pollination), or export to other conspecific plants (74%). N+ species set more fruit per flower (68.8% vs. 48.8%), but equivalent fractions of ovules per fruit were fertilized and subsequently developed into seeds in N− and N+ species. These findings provide only limited evidence that deceit pollination enhances mating quality (nectar production causes more local mating in N+ species than in N− species). Contrary to the hypothesis, deceit does not generally affect pollinator‐mediated self‐pollination. The repeated evolution of nectar production from rewardless ancestors in Disa likely occurred under severe visit limitation, favoring nectar‐producing mutants with higher reproductive output. Given that we did not find any mating quality advantage for rewardlessness in Disa, its persistence in some lineages remains an evolutionary enigma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological MonographsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207