The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
NATURAL SELECTION ON FLORAL TRAITS IN TWO SPECIES OF LOBELIA WITH DIFFERENT POLLINATORS
Abstract
Using both multivariate and univariate regression techniques, I measured selection acting through female reproductive success in two hermaphroditic species with precise pollen placement but different pollinators: hummingbird-pollinated Lobelia cardinalis and bumblebee-pollinated L. siphilitica. Six traits were analyzed in two populations of L. cardinalis and one population of L. siphilitica: flower number, mean number of flowers open per day, inflorescence height, number of days in flower, median-flower date and nectar-stigma distance. In another study it was found that female reproductive success in one population of L. cardinalis was much less pollen limited than in the other two populations, and it was therefore expected that selection of female reproductive traits in this population would be weaker. In the univariate analyses correlations caused nearly all traits to have significant directional selection coefficients. However, in the multivariate analyses no traits in L. siphilitica experienced directional or quadratic selection. Selection acted differently in the two L. cardinalis populations. The less pollen-limited population experienced positive directional selection on flower number and median-flower date, while in the other L. cardinalis population there was positive directional selection on flower number and nectar-stigma distance and both positive directional and positive quadratic selection on height. The functional significance of floral traits in these two species and the probable effect of increased sample sizes are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Jackknife, the Bootstrap and Other Resampling Plans
Efron, B. (1982) · Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics eBooks · doi:10.1137/1.9781611970319 · Cited by 8,120
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
The measurement of selection on correlated characters
Lande, R., & Arnold, S. J. (1983) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1983.tb00236.x · Cited by 5,437
QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY
Lande, R. (1979) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04694.x · Cited by 2,648
Natural selection and random genetic drift in phenotypic evolution
Lande, R. (1976) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1976.tb00911.x · Cited by 1,828
Cited by
Pollination Syndromes and Floral Specialization
Fenster, C. B., Armbruster, W. S., Wilson, P., Dudash, M. R., & Thomson, J. D. (2004) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347 · Cited by 2,241
Brodie, E. D. (1992) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1992.tb01124.x · Cited by 498
Herrera, C. M. (1993) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/2937101 · Cited by 263
Fairbairn, D. J., & Preziosi, R. F. (1994) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285663 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnston, M. O.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1991-09
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1468-1479
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2316780357
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 12.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: NATURAL SELECTION ON FLORAL TRAITS IN TWO SPECIES OF LOBELIA WITH DIFFERENT POLLINATORS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb02649.x
- The paper
- Johnston, M. O. (1991). NATURAL SELECTION ON FLORAL TRAITS IN TWO SPECIES OF LOBELIA WITH DIFFERENT POLLINATORS. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1991.tb02649.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.