Co-flowering richness has variable effects on pollen quantity and quality limitation in four <i>Clarkia</i> species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pollination failure occurs from insufficient pollen quantity or quality. However, the relative contributions of pollen quantity vs. quality to overall pollen limitation, and how this is affected by the co-flowering context, remain unknown for most plant populations. Here, we studied patterns of pollen deposition and pollen tube formation across populations of four predominately outcrossing species in the genus Clarkia to evaluate how the richness of co-flowering congeners affects the contribution of pollen quantity and quality to pollen limitation. METHODS: We partition variation in pollen deposition and pollen tube production across individuals, populations and species to identify the main sources of variation in components of reproductive success. We further quantify the relative contribution of pollen quantity and quality limitation to the reproductive success of the four Clarkia species using piecewise regression analyses. Finally, we evaluate how variation in the number of co-flowering Clarkia species in the community affects the strength of pollen quality and quality limitation. RESULTS: Across all contexts, pollen deposition and the proportion of pollen tubes produced varied greatly among individuals, populations and species, and these were not always correlated. For instance, C. xantiana received the smallest pollen loads yet produced the highest proportion of pollen tubes, while C. speciosa exhibited the opposite pattern. Yet, co-flowering richness had variable effects on the strength of pollen quantity and quality limitation among populations. Specifically, breakpoint values, which are an indicator of overall pollen limitation, were two-fold higher in the four-species community compared with one- and two-species communities for two Clarkia species, suggesting that pollen limitation can increase with increasing richness of co-flowering congeners. CONCLUSIONS: Our results reveal a complex interplay between the quantity and quality of pollen limitation and co-flowering context that may have different evolutionary outcomes across species and populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".