Hiding in plain sight: experimental evidence for birds as selective agents for host mimicry in mistletoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Australian mistletoe species are cryptic, closely resembling their host foliage and overall appearance. Seed-dispersing birds have been proposed as a selective agent for host resemblance, with cryptic mistletoes only located by thoroughly searching through canopies regardless of infection status, boosting mistletoe populations by increasing the frequency of seeds dispersed to uninfected hosts; however, this idea is as yet untested. We measured bird visitation to fruiting mistletoes (n = 20) over two consecutive days, with manual defoliation of the mistletoe occurring before observation began on the second day to determine the effect of the visual appearance of the mistletoe on potential seed-dispersing birds, expecting defoliation to reduce the number of visits. Visits to the mistletoes were compared between days of observation and dietary guild (mistletoe specialist/nonspecialist). Intact mistletoes were visited more than the defoliated mistletoes, and the dietary guilds differed in their visitation patterns. This work demonstrates that the visual acuity of seed-dispersers can distinguish subtle differences in mistletoe phenotypes within infected hosts, consistent with the hypothesis that those mistletoes that more closely resemble their hosts are more difficult to perceive from afar and therefore more likely to have their seeds dispersed to uninfected hosts.
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".