Ecological causes and consequences of flower color polymorphism in a self‐pollinating plant (<i>Boechera stricta</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspecific variation in flower color is often attributed to pollinator-mediated selection, yet this mechanism cannot explain flower color polymorphisms in self-pollinating species. Indirect selection mediated via biotic and abiotic stresses could maintain flower color variation in these systems. The selfing forb, Boechera stricta, typically displays white flowers, but some individuals produce purple flowers. We quantified environmental correlates of flower color in natural populations. To disentangle plasticity from genotypic variation, we performed a multiyear field experiment in five gardens. In controlled conditions, we evaluated herbivore preferences and the effects of drought stress and soil pH on flower color expression. In natural populations, purple-flowered individuals experienced lower foliar herbivory than did their white-flowered counterparts. This pattern also held in the common gardens. Additionally, low-elevation environments induced pigmented flowers (plasticity), and the likelihood of floral pigmentation decreased with source elevation of maternal families (genetic cline). Viability selection favored families with pigmented flowers. In the laboratory, herbivores exerted greater damage on tissue derived from white- vs purple-flowered individuals. Furthermore, drought induced pigmentation in white-flowered lineages, and white-flowered plants had a fecundity advantage in the well-watered control. Flower color variation in selfing species is probably maintained by herbivory, drought stress, and other abiotic factors that vary spatially.
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".