Selective contexts favouring asymmetry: A theoretical and empirical study of pollen transfer in mirror-image flowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reciprocal herkogamy has evolved multiple times in flowering plants and is thought to enhance cross-pollination and reduce reproductive interference. Mirror-image flowers represent a form of reciprocal herkogamy in which plants have either right-or left-deflected styles (dimorphic enantiostyly) or produce both stylar orientations (monomorphic enantiostyly). The ecological conditions under which these two forms of enantiostyly originate and persist remain poorly understood. Here, we investigate how floral asymmetry affects pollen transfer dynamics and mating outcomes, and under which conditions enantiostyly provides a fitness advantage over straight-styled floral morphologies. We integrate field observations of dimorphic enantiostylous Wachendorfia paniculata with a mathematical model simulating pollen transfer in plants with straight-styled, monomorphic, and dimorphic enantiostylous flowers. The model incorporates pollinator pathways, pollen carryover, and floral display size, and was parameterized using our ecological data. Enantiostylous flowers received more outcrossed pollen than straight-styled flowers, with dimorphism outperforming monomorphism. However, enantiostyly increased stochasticity in pollen transfer due to variation in pollinator pathways. Intrafloral self-pollination was extremely low in enantiostylous flowers and did not differ between monomorphic and dimorphic forms. Dimorphic enantiostylous plants exhibited longer pollen carryover curves and exported more pollen to more mates potentially increasing siring success and mate diversity. Enantiostyly, particularly in dimorphic systems, can provide a selective advantage by improving pollen receipt and export components of fitness through enhanced outcrossing. This mating advantage may be reduced under conditions of pollen limitation or when autogamy in straight-styled flowers is low. Our findings clarify the functional significance of enantiostyly and offer a framework for understanding the evolution of floral asymmetry in angiosperms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".