Herbivores and plant defences affect selection on plant reproductive traits more strongly than pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pollinators and herbivores can both affect the evolutionary diversification of plant reproductive traits. However, plant defences frequently alter antagonistic and mutualistic interactions, and therefore, variation in plant defences may alter patterns of herbivore- and pollinator-mediated selection on plant traits. We tested this hypothesis by conducting a common garden field experiment using 50 clonal genotypes of white clover (Trifolium repens) that varied in a Mendelian-inherited chemical antiherbivore defence-the production of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). To evaluate whether plant defences alter herbivore- and/or pollinator-mediated selection, we factorially crossed chemical defence (25 cyanogenic and 25 acyanogenic genotypes), herbivore damage (herbivore suppression) and pollination (hand pollination). We found that herbivores weakened selection for increased inflorescence production, suggesting that large displays are costly in the presence of herbivores. In addition, herbivores weakened selection on flower size but only among acyanogenic plants, suggesting that plant defences reduce the strength of herbivore-mediated selection. Pollinators did not independently affect selection on any trait, although pollinators weakened selection for later flowering among cyanogenic plants. Overall, cyanogenic plant defences consistently increased the strength of positive directional selection on reproductive traits. Herbivores and pollinators both strengthened and weakened the strength of selection on reproductive traits, although herbivores imposed ~2.7× stronger selection than pollinators across all traits. Contrary to the view that pollinators are the most important agents of selection on reproductive traits, our data show that selection on reproductive traits is driven primarily by variation in herbivory and plant defences in this system.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".