Do annual and perennial populations of an insect-pollinated plant species differ in mating system?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Theory predicts that outcrossing should be more prevalent among perennials than annuals, a pattern confirmed by comparative evidence from diverse angiosperm families. However, intraspecific comparisons between annual and perennial populations are few because such variation is uncommon among flowering plants. Here, we test the hypothesis that perennial populations outcross more than annual populations by investigating Incarvillea sinensis, a wide-ranging insect-pollinated herb native to China. The occurrence of both allopatric and sympatric populations allows us to examine the stability of mating system differences between life histories under varying ecological conditions. METHODS: We estimated outcrossing rates and biparental inbreeding in 16 allopatric and five sympatric populations in which both life histories coexisted using 20 microsatellite loci. In each population we measured height, branch number, corolla size, tube length and herkogamy for ~30 individuals. In a sympatric population, we recorded daily flower number, pollinator visitation and the fruit and seed set of annual and perennial plants. KEY RESULTS: As predicted, outcrossing rates (t) were considerably higher in perennial (mean = 0.76) than annual (mean = 0.09) populations. This difference in mating system was also maintained at sympatric sites where plants grew intermixed. In both allopatric and sympatric populations the degree of herkogamy was consistently larger in outcrossing than selfing plants. Perennials were more branched, with more and larger flowers than in annuals. In a sympatric population, annuals had a significantly higher fruit and seed set than perennials. CONCLUSIONS: Genetically based differences in herkogamy between annuals and perennials appear to play a key role in governing outcrossing rates in populations, regardless of variation in local ecological conditions. The maintenance of mating system and life history trait differentiation between perennial and annual populations of I. sinensis probably results from correlated evolution in response to local environmental conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".