Flower colour and flowering phenology mediate plant–pollinator interaction assembly in a diverse co‐flowering community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Uncovering the role of competition and facilitation in community assembly is central for developing a predictive understanding of the forces that organize biodiversity. Standard trait‐based approaches however rely on detection of only one assembly mechanism (competition or facilitation) along a single trait even though pollinator‐mediated plant–plant interactions can be structured along multiple phenotypic, phenological and ecological traits. We evaluated plant species distribution along multiple phenotypic and ecological traits (flower colour, flowering time, pollinator sharing) and described an entire co‐flowering community as a set of modules with unique patterns of assembly, to test predictions regarding the relative contribution of competition and facilitation to the assembly of a diverse co‐flowering community. We show a modular pattern of flower colour assembly. Flower colour modules differ in their spectral reflectance patterns including colour hue and saturation. Within modules, however, species are differentially assembled along phenological and ecological traits (pollinator sharing) depending on the main pollinator group visiting plant species within each module. Results suggest different trait assembly patterns within individual trait‐modules in the same co‐flowering community and that different trait‐patterns can result from the same type of ecological interaction. This study reveals empirical evidence of community assembly along multiple axes of trait differentiation and raises caution when interpreting assembly patterns based on a single trait. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".