Experimental insights on Darwin's cross‐promotion hypothesis in tristylous purple loosestrife (<i>Lythrum salicaria</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Darwin proposed that the reciprocal arrangement of anthers and stigmas in heterostylous plants promotes cross‐pollination through pollen segregation on pollinators’ bodies. The floral tube in most heterostylous species constrains the feeding posture of pollinators determining the site of contact with sex organs located at different heights within a flower. Here, we evaluate Darwin's hypothesis in tristylous Lythrum salicaria, a species with a partially tubular corolla, and examine the extent to which the location of sex organs within a flower influence compatible and incompatible pollination. We predicted that the proficiency of cross‐pollination would increase for more inserted sex organs due to the restrictions imposed by the floral tube on pollinator positioning. METHODS: We used experimental trimorphic and monomorphic arrays and emasculated flowers to quantify intermorph pollen transfer and capture among all sex‐organ heights, and estimated the contribution of intraflower self‐pollination, geitonogamous self‐pollination, and intramorph outcross pollination to total intramorph pollination. KEY RESULTS: As predicted, disassortative pollination varied significantly with sex‐organ height and was highest for short‐level organs and lowest for long‐level organs. In monomorphic arrays, most intramorph pollination resulted from outcross pollination followed by intraflower and geitonogamous self‐pollination. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. Reciprocal herkogamy promoted varying degrees of disassortative pollination with the magnitude strongly influenced by sex‐organ height within a flower.
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".