Testing for apomixis in an obligate pollination mutualism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants with a small number of specific pollinators may be vulnerable to fluctuations in the availability of those pollinators, which could limit plant reproductive success and even result in extinction. Plants can develop mechanisms to mitigate this risk, such as apomixis. Reproductive assurance mechanisms have been largely ignored in obligate pollination mutualisms (OPMs), that are some of the most specialised of plant-pollinator interactions. Furthermore, although OPMs are often referred to as obligate, this is rarely tested. We performed a flower-bagging experiment to test if the unisexual flowers of Breynia oblongifolia could set fruit in the absence of its highly specialised seed-eating moth pollinators. Surprisingly, many bagged female flowers developed fruits, suggesting apomixis. We therefore conducted a second series of experiments in which we 1) added or excluded pollinators from caged plants; and 2) surveyed a wild population for apomictic reproduction using mother-offspring genotyping. In the absence of pollinators, no fruits developed. In addition, we detected no genetic evidence for apomixis when comparing between mothers and their offspring or between adults in a wild population. We explain the production of fruits in bagged branches by our discovery that B. oblongifolia can retain pollinated female flowers over the winter period. These flowers develop to fruits in the spring in the absence of male flowers or pollinators. Our study thus shows that B. oblongifolia is unable to produce fruit in the absence of its specialist moth pollinators. Thus, the highly specific interaction between plant and pollinators appears to be truly obligate.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".