Simulated pollinator decline has similar effects on seed production of female and hermaphrodite <i>Lobelia siphilitica</i>, but different effects on selection on floral traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Pollinator decline, by reducing seed production, is predicted to strengthen natural selection on floral traits. However, the effect of pollinator decline on gender dimorphic species (such as gynodioecious species, where plants produce female or hermaphrodite flowers) may differ between the sex morphs: if pollinator decline reduces the seed production of females more than hermaphrodites, then it should also have a larger effect on selection on floral traits in females than in hermaphrodites. METHODS: To simulate pollinator decline, we experimentally reduced pollinator access to female and hermaphrodite Lobelia siphilitica plants. We compared the seed production of plants in the reduced pollination treatment to plants that were exposed to ambient pollination conditions. Within each treatment, we also measured directional selection on four floral traits of females and hermaphrodites. RESULTS: Experimentally reducing pollination decreased seed production of both females and hermaphrodites by ~21%. Reducing pollination also strengthened selection on floral traits, but this effect was not larger in females than in hermaphrodites. Instead, reducing pollination intensified selection for taller inflorescences in hermaphrodites, but did not intensify selection on any floral trait in females. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that pollinator decline will not have a larger effect on either seed production or selection on floral traits of female plants. As such, any effect of pollinator decline on seed production may be similar for gender dimorphic and monomorphic species. However, the potential for floral traits of females (and thus of gender dimorphic species) to evolve in response to pollinator decline may be limited.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".