Plasticity in floral longevity and sex‐phase duration of <i>Lobelia siphilitica</i> in response to simulated pollinator declines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Pollinator declines can reduce the quantity and quality of pollination services, resulting in less pollen deposited on flowers and lower seed production by plants. In response to these reductions, plant species that cannot autonomously self-pollinate and thus are dependent on pollinators to set seed could plastically adjust their floral traits. Such plasticity could increase the opportunity for outcross pollination directly, as well as indirectly by affecting inflorescence traits. METHODS: To test whether plants can respond to pollinator declines by plastically adjusting their floral traits, we simulated declines by experimentally reducing pollinator access to Lobelia siphilitica plants and measuring two traits of early- and late-season flowers: (1) floral longevity; and (2) sex-phase duration. To test whether plasticity in these floral traits affected inflorescence traits, we measured daily display size and phenotypic gender. RESULTS: We found that experimentally reducing pollination did not affect female-phase duration, but did extend the male-phase duration of early-season flowers by 13% and the longevity of late-season flowers by 12.8%. However, plants with an extended male phase did not have a more male-biased phenotypic gender, and plants with an extended floral longevity did not have a larger daily display. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that plants can respond to pollinator declines by plastically adjusting both the longevity and sex-phase duration of their flowers. If this plasticity increases the opportunity for outcross pollination, then it could be one mechanism by which pollinator-dependent plant species maintain seed production as pollinators decline.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".