Reproductive isolation between <i>Salvia elegans</i> and <i>S. fulgens</i>, two hummingbird‐pollinated sympatric sages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The integrity of species in sympatric contact sites is dependent on the existence of reproductive isolating mechanisms, which restrict gene flow between them. However, we know little about the mechanisms that enable the coexistence of species with similar floral morphologies. Here, we evaluated several reproductive isolation barriers between Salvia elegans and S. fulgens, two sympatric sages with a similar ornithophilous floral syndrome, offering nectar as the main reward. Over 3 years, we evaluated broad-scale geographic isolation, floral phenologies and floral visitors as pre-pollination barriers, and fruit set, seed number and seed germination as post-pollination barriers. We found considerable geographic isolation and significant altitudinal differences between the two sages. The flowering period of both sages always overlapped extensively during the 3 years of this study, but hummingbirds were highly specific, visiting one or the other Salvia species and showing aggressive territorial behaviour. Interspecific experimental crosses revealed that hybrid seeds might be formed although strong asymmetric barriers were found depending on the species acting as the maternal donor. Despite the low level of flowering asynchrony, reproductive isolation was remarkably high in the two sages. Geographic isolation and pollinator fidelity were the main factors responsible for maintaining species integrity. Despite an extensive review, we found very few studies quantifying the efficiency of isolation barriers in Neotropical plants or even the importance of hummingbirds as pollinators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".