Related plants tend to share pollinators and herbivores, but strength of phylogenetic signal varies among plant families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Related plants are often hypothesized to interact with similar sets of pollinators and herbivores, but this idea has only mixed empirical support. This may be because plant families vary in their tendency to share interaction partners. We quantify overlap of interaction partners for all pairs of plants in 59 pollination and 11 herbivory networks based on the numbers of shared and unshared interaction partners (thereby capturing both proportional and absolute overlap). We test for relationships between phylogenetic distance and partner overlap within each network; whether these relationships varied with the composition of the plant community; and whether well-represented plant families showed different relationships. Across all networks, more closely related plants tended to have greater overlap. The strength of this relationship within a network was unrelated to the composition of the network's plant component, but, when considered separately, different plant families showed different relationships between phylogenetic distance and overlap of interaction partners. The variety of relationships between phylogenetic distance and partner overlap in different plant families probably reflects a comparable variety of ecological and evolutionary processes. Considering factors affecting particular species-rich groups within a community could be the key to understanding the distribution of interactions at the network level.
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".