MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415272617 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.16.682931

Color, size, shape: The drivers of floral variation in Hesperis matronalis (Dames Rocket)

2025· preprint· W4415272617 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Johnson, Joanna L. Rifkin, Stephen Wright, Regina S. Baucom

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollinatorNatural selectionVariation (astronomy)TraitPetalGenetic variationSelection (genetic algorithm)Stabilizing selectionDirectional selection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolutionary biologists have long been intrigued by the factors that sustain genetic and phenotypic variation within and among natural populations. Polymorphisms underlying components of floral display -- such as floral color, size, and shape -- are uniquely of interest since variation in these traits impact pollinator attraction, rates of visitation, and pollinator efficiency, which ultimately influence patterns of plant reproduction and therefore fitness. We leverage existing floral variation present within and among populations of Hesperis matronalis (Dames Rocket) to disentangle the relative influence of natural selection and genetic drift in shaping floral trait variation. We employ a multi-tiered approach: we determine if variation in floral traits (color, size, and petal shape) is influenced by geography or environmental variables such as temperature and precipitation, we evaluate whether selection underlies trait variation by comparing phenotypic divergence (PST) with neutral genetic structure (FST), and we perform a Lande-Arnold selection analysis to explore the relationship between fitness and floral trait variation within natural populations. We find that selection underlies the divergence of floral color, floral size, and petal width among H. matronalis populations, with PST > FST for each trait. We find no indication, however, that variation in size in this species is influenced by the environment, but some evidence that variation in floral color and petal shape may be influenced by temperature. Finally, selection analyses of contemporary populations indicate divergent selection affecting combinations of color, petal shape, and plant size. These results suggest that the variation in floral shape in this species may be maintained due to environmental pressures, whereas floral color is influenced by pollinator visibility and the presence of different pollinator groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→