Intraspecific variation in seed dispersal between annual and perennial populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Seed dispersal impacts plant fitness by shaping the habitat and distribution of offspring, influencing population dynamics and spatial genetic diversity. Whether the evolution of dispersal strategies varies across herbaceous life forms (annual, perennial or clonal) is unresolved. In this study, we examine how seed-dispersal strategies vary between annual and perennial populations of Mimulus guttatus (syn. Erythranthe guttata), investigating differences in seedpod orientation and shape and in the probability and distance of seed dispersal. METHODS: We conducted a greenhouse experiment using 190 plants from six populations of annual and perennial M. guttatus, to compare floral orientation, seedpod architecture and its effect on seed dispersal. We used controlled wind trials to measure the probability of seed dispersal and the dispersal distance of individual seeds from plants. KEY RESULTS: We identify the following three key differences in seedpod architecture and seed dispersal in annuals and perennials: seedpods are angled more upward-facing in perennials compared with annuals; a lower proportion of seed is dispersed in perennials; and seeds disperse further in perennials than in annuals. These results are consistent with our predictions that a clonal, perennial life form should be associated with traits that increase the retention of seeds, requiring greater wind speeds to dislodge seed and increasing dispersal distance. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the close genetic relationship between annual and perennial populations of M. guttatus, we find differences in seedpod architecture and seed dispersal. We suggest that perennial plants, characterized by clonal reproduction and multi-year survival, benefit from strategies that facilitate long-distance seed dispersal to mitigate competition and promote colonization of new habitats.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".