Evolution of intraspecific floral variation in a generalist–specialist pollination system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intraspecific processes impact macroevolutionary patterns through individual variation, selection, and ecological specialization. According to the niche variation hypothesis, the broader ecological niche of generalist species results in an increased morphological variation among individuals either because they are constituted of diversified specialized individuals each exploiting a fraction of the species' niche or because they are constituted of true generalist individuals that experience relaxed selection. To test this hypothesis, we surveyed the individual floral morphology of species of Antillean Gesneriaceae, a group that has transitioned between specialization for hummingbird pollination and generalization multiple times throughout its evolutionary history. We characterized the profiles of corollas using geometric morphometrics and compared the intraspecific shape variance of specialists and generalists in a phylogenetic context. We used three approaches that differently accounted for the high dimensionality of morphological traits, the ancestral reconstruction of pollination syndromes over time, and the error associated with the estimation of the intraspecific variance. Our findings provide partial support for the niche variation hypothesis. If considering the whole shape in the analysis corroborated this idea, decomposing the shape into principal components indicated that not all aspects of the corolla exhibit the same pattern of variation. Specifically, pollination generalists tend to display greater intraspecific variation than specialists in terms of tubularity, but not of curvature. Accounting for the error in the variance estimation also reduced the support for the hypothesis, suggesting that larger sample sizes may be required to reach stronger conclusions. This study emphasizes the reciprocal influence between plants and their pollinators on floral morphology at different biodiversity scales and suggests that ecological strategies of species can affect patterns of morphological variation at macroevolutionary scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".