Testing adaptive hypotheses for an evolutionarily conserved trait through slow-motion videos of pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traits conserved across evolutionary time often provide compelling examples of key adaptations for a given taxonomic group. Tetradynamy is the presence of four long stamens plus two short stamens within a flower and is conserved across most of the roughly 4000 species in the mustard family, Brassicaceae. While this differentiation in stamens is hypothesized to play a role in pollination efficiency, very little is known about the potential function of the two stamen types. The present study sheds new light on this mystery using wild radish ( Raphanus raphanistrum ), a widespread and well-studied tetradynamous plant. We used data collected from slow-motion videos of pollinators visiting wild radish flowers to test three adaptive hypotheses (not mutually exclusive): (H1) short and long stamens are specialized for either feeding or pollinating; (H2) short and long stamens are specialized for different pollinator taxa; and (H3) the presence of short and long stamens increases pollinator movement and thus effectiveness. We find evidence consistent with hypothesis H3, but no evidence for hypotheses H1 or H2. Thus, tetradynamy may be an adaptation for generalized pollination, enabling effective visits by the variety of pollinators visiting most species of Brassicaceae.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".