Plant traits moderate pollen limitation of introduced and native plants: a phylogenetic meta‐analysis of global scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of pollination in the success of invasive plants needs to be understood because invasives have substantial effects on species interactions and ecosystem functions. Previous research has shown both that reproduction of invasive plants is often pollen limited and that invasive plants can have high seed production, motivating the questions: How do invasive populations maintain reproductive success in spite of pollen limitation? What species traits moderate pollen limitation for invaders? We conducted a phylogenetic meta-analysis with 68 invasive, 50 introduced noninvasive and 1931 native plant populations, across 1249 species. We found that invasive populations with generalist pollination or pollinator dependence were less pollen limited than natives, but invasives and introduced noninvasives did not differ. Invasive species produced 3× fewer ovules/flower and >250× more flowers per plant, compared with their native relatives. While these traits were negatively correlated, consistent with a tradeoff, this did not differ with invasion status. Invasive plants that produce many flowers and have floral generalisation are able to compensate for or avoid pollen limitation, potentially helping to explain the invaders' reproductive successes.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".