Bioclimatic niches are conserved and unrelated to pollination syndromes in Antillean Gesneriaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of the evolution of abiotic niches can be informative regarding the speciation drivers in a given group. Yet, two factors that could potentially affect niche evolution have seldom been addressed concomitantly, which are biotic interactions and geographical isolation. In this study, we used as a model group the Antillean plant genera Gesneria and Rhytidophyllum (Gesneriaceae) to evaluate the effect of pollinators and geographical isolation on the bioclimatic niche. These genera possess species characterized by interspecific geographical isolation in different islands and are pollinated by different pollinators. Some species are pollinated by hummingbirds, other by bats, while some are more generalists and are pollinated by pollinators from both functional groups. After describing the bioclimatic niches of plant species, we measured niche overlap for species pairs and we fitted Brownian motion and Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU) evolution models with multiple evolutionary regimes to test for an effect of pollination strategy or geographical isolation on bioclimatic niche evolution of these plants. The analysis of niche overlap between plant species, which could not be corrected for phylogenetic relationships, showed that it was significantly influenced by pollination mode and island distribution. By contrast, the best fitting evolutionary model on niche optima and tolerance was always an OU model with a unique selective regime, suggesting that neither pollination strategy nor island isolation had an important effect on bioclimatic niches at a macroevolutionary scale. Instead, we conclude that bioclimatic niches of Antillean Gesneriaceae evolved under phylogenetic conservatism and hypothesize that this macroevolutionary pattern could result from adaptation to temporally variable climates in the Antilles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".