MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6929965152 · doi:10.5061/dryad.hqbzkh1nh

Evolution of intraspecific floral variation in a generalist-specialist pollination system

2024· dataset· en· W6929965152 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Geographic Society
KeywordsIntraspecific competitionGeneralist and specialist speciesPollinatorPollinationHummingbirdVariation (astronomy)MorphometricsNicheEcological niche

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraspecific processes impact macroevolutionary patterns through individual variation, selection, and ecological specialisation. According to the niche variation hypothesis, the broader ecological niche of generalist species has been proposed to increase in variation among individuals, either because they are constituted of diversified specialised individuals each exploiting a fraction of the species’ niche, or because they are constituted of true generalist individuals that experience relaxed selection. To test this hypothesis, we surveyed the individual floral morphology of species of Antillean Gesneriaceae, a group that has transitioned between specialisation for hummingbird pollination and generalisation multiple times throughout its evolutionary history. We characterised the profiles of corollas using geometric morphometrics and compared the intraspecific shape variance of specialists and generalists in a phylogenetic context. We used three approaches that differently accounted for the high dimensionality of morphological traits, the ancestral reconstruction of pollination syndromes over time, and the error associated with the estimation of the intraspecific variance. Our findings provide partial support for the niche variation hypothesis. If considering the whole shape in the analysis corroborated this idea, decomposing the shape into principal components indicated that not all aspects of the corolla exhibit the same pattern of variation. Specifically, pollination generalists tend to display greater intraspecific variation than specialists in terms of tubularity, but not of curvature. Accounting for the error in the estimation of the variance also reduced the support for the hypothesis, suggesting that larger sample sizes may be required to reach stronger conclusions. This study emphasises the reciprocal influence between plants and their pollinators on floral morphology at different biodiversity scales, by affecting intraspecific floral variation that can result in macroevolutionary patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.012

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207