The Causes and Consequences of Within-Population Variation in Floral Longevity in <i>Mimulus guttatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Premise of research. Floral longevity, the amount of time from anthesis to floral senescence, is a key floral trait that determines the opportunity for pollinator visitation. However, the causes and consequences of variation in longevity have primarily been studied among species, which may not reflect patterns of variation within populations.Methodology. To determine the causes and consequences of within-population variation in floral longevity, we exposed Mimulus guttatus to either an ambient- or reduced-pollination treatment. We measured floral longevity to test whether reduced pollinator access (which simulates pollinator decline) causes a plastic extension in floral longevity. We also measured two traits—flower size and anther-stigma distance—that could cause floral longevity to vary and two traits—daily display size and flowering duration—that could vary in response to longevity.Pivotal results. Floral longevity was not affected by experimentally reducing pollinator access or by anther-stigma distance. However, longevity was reduced in M. guttatus plants with larger flowers. Variation in floral longevity did not affect the flowering duration of M. guttatus plants and (depending on the pollination treatment) had either a negative effect or no effect on daily display size.Conclusions. We found evidence that within-population variation in floral longevity in M. guttatus can be caused by correlations with flower size and can have consequences for daily display size that vary depending on the pollination environment. These results contrast with among-species studies of variation in floral longevity, which have not included display size but have found that longevity either is extended in species with larger flowers or is not related to flower size. Consequently, predictions about the causes of within-population variation in floral longevity based on among-species studies may be misleading.
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 | 0.001 | 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".