Habitat effects on reproductive phenotype, pollinator behavior, fecundity, and mating outcomes of a bumble bee–pollinated herb
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Fecundity and mating outcomes commonly differ among plant populations occupying contrasting environments. If self-pollination occurs primarily among flowers within plants, contrasting reproductive outcomes among populations must reflect environmental effects on plant-pollinator interactions. Specifically, local conditions could affect features of plant phenotypes that influence pollinator behavior, in turn modifying plant reproductive outcomes. METHODS: We compared phenotypes, pollinator abundance and behavior, and female fecundity and mating in two meadow populations and two forest populations of Aconitum kusnezoffii within 3 km of each other. Mating outcomes were assessed using microsatellites. RESULTS: Meadow plants generally produced more, shorter ramets with more, larger flowers, but less nectar per flower than forest plants. These differences likely largely represent phenotypic plasticity. Individual bumble bees visited more flowers on forest plants, likely because the more abundant bees in the meadows depleted nectar availability, as indicated by briefer visits to individual flowers. Despite similar fruit set in both habitats, forest plants set more seeds per fruit. Nevertheless, meadow plants produced more seeds overall, owing to sevenfold greater flower production. Consistent with individual bees visiting fewer flowers on meadow plants, more of their seeds were outcrossed. However, the outcrossed seeds of forest plants included more male mates. CONCLUSIONS: Reproductive outcomes can vary among populations of animal-pollinated plants as a result of differences in the availability of effective pollinators and environmental effects on plant phenotypes, and their functional consequences for pollinator behavior that governs pollen dispersal.
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".