Specialisation in pollination strategies does not result in lower diversification rates in Antillean Gesneriaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Islands are typically characterised by depauperate and temporally varying pollinator communities. In such environments, plants with generalist pollination strategies are expected to have an advantage in terms of establishment and survival due to their ability to maintain more stable pollination services. This advantage could translate into higher diversification rates for generalists on islands, yet this hypothesis has rarely been tested explicitly. Here, we evaluate this idea using a clade of 80 Gesneriaceae species from the Antilles that exhibit multiple origins of generalist and specialist pollination strategies. We reconstructed the phylogeny of the group using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) data and Sanger sequences from five nuclear genes. We then applied state-dependent diversification models (SSE) to test whether generalist species—pollinated by bats, hummingbirds, and insects—diversified more rapidly than specialists pollinated by either hummingbirds or bats alone. Contrary to our expectations, generalist species did not exhibit higher diversification rates than specialists. Moreover, ancestral state reconstructions suggest that the most recent common ancestor of the group was likely a generalist, which reframes our understanding of pollination strategy evolution in this clade. Our findings indicate that pollination specialists are not necessarily at a disadvantage in insular ecosystems and that both generalist and specialist strategies can persist and diversify in island contexts.
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".