Phrymaceae 12 claims

Claim · model-written summary

The three M. guttatus founders differ strongly in admixture history, with nearly a quarter of one founder genome introgressed from M. nasutus.

Taxon

M. guttatusErythranthe guttatae1

Interactor

M. nasutusErythranthe nasutae1other

Outcome

admixture historye1

Value

nearly a quartere1

Verbatim

e1

“We discover that the three M. guttatus founders differ dramatically in admixture history, with nearly a quarter of one founder's genome introgressed from M. nasutus”

Claim · model-written summary

Abundant segregating variation for hybrid incompatibilities with M. nasutus is found even in three M. guttatus lines.

Taxon

M. guttatusErythranthe guttatae0

Interactor

M. nasutusErythranthe nasutae0other

Outcome

segregating variation for hybrid incompatibilitiese0

Qualifier

abundante0

Verbatim

e0

“even with this limited sample of three M. guttatus lines, we discover abundant segregating variation for hybrid incompatibilities with M. nasutus”

Claim · model-written summary

The presence of Mimulus ringens did not decrease seed set of Lobelia siphilitica.

Taxon

Lobelia siphiliticaLobelia siphiliticat0

Treatment

presence of M. ringense1

Interactor

M. ringensMimulus ringense1other

Outcome

seed sete1

Direction

did not decreasee1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“The presence of M. ringens did not decrease seed set of L. siphilitica”

t0

“Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica”

Claim · model-written summary

Selection for smaller daily display size of female Lobelia siphilitica was significant in the absence of Mimulus ringens.

Taxon

Lobelia siphiliticaLobelia siphiliticat0

Treatment

absence of M. ringense2

Interactor

M. ringensMimulus ringense2other

Outcome

selection for smaller daily displayse2

Direction

smallere2

Verbatim

e2

“there was significant selection for smaller daily displays in the absence of M. ringens”

t0

“Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica”

Claim · model-written summary

Selection for larger daily display size of female Lobelia siphilitica was nonsignificant in the presence of Mimulus ringens.

Taxon

Lobelia siphiliticaLobelia siphiliticat0

Treatment

presence of M. ringense3

Interactor

M. ringensMimulus ringense3other

Outcome

selection for larger displayse3

Direction

largere3

Verbatim

e3

“nonsignificant selection for larger displays in the presence of M. ringens”

t0

“Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica”

Claim · model-written summary

Selection on flower colour did not differ with or without Mimulus ringens.

Taxon

Lobelia siphiliticaLobelia siphiliticat0

Treatment

presence and absence of M. ringense4

Interactor

M. ringensMimulus ringense4other

Outcome

selection on flower coloure4

Direction

did not differe4

Verbatim

e4

“selection on flower colour did not differ in the presence and absence of M. ringens”

t0

“Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica”

Claim · model-written summary

Interactions for pollination with Mimulus ringens may affect the evolution of floral traits in Lobelia siphilitica but not of sexual dimorphism in them.

Taxon

L. siphiliticaLobelia siphiliticae6

Treatment

interactions for pollination with M. ringense6

Interactor

M. ringensMimulus ringense6other

Outcome

evolution of floral traitse6

Direction

affectede6

Verbatim

e6

“the evolution of floral traits in L. siphilitica, but not the evolution of sexual dimorphism in these traits, can be affected by interactions for pollination with M. ringens”

t0

“Effect of coflowering Mimulus ringens on phenotypic selection on floral traits of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica”

Claim · model-written summary

M. guttatus presence reduced L. amplexicaule nectar sugar.

Taxon

L. amplexicauleLamium amplexicaulee0

Treatment

presence of M. guttatuse0

Interactor

M. guttatusErythranthe guttatae0other

Outcome

total nectar sugar contente0

Direction

reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“presence of M. guttatus, a competitive species, reduced the total nectar sugar content in L. amplexicaule”

Claim · model-written summary

M. guttatus presence reduced L. amplexicaule nectar volume per flower.

Taxon

L. amplexicauleLamium amplexicaulee0

Treatment

presence of M. guttatuse0

Interactor

M. guttatusErythranthe guttatae0other

Outcome

nectar volume per flowere0

Direction

decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“presence of M. guttatus, a competitive species, reduced the total nectar sugar content in L. amplexicaule through a concomitant decrease in nectar volume per flower”

Claim · model-written summary

M. guttatus presence reduced L. amplexicaule floral display size.

Taxon

L. amplexicauleLamium amplexicaulee0

Treatment

presence of M. guttatuse0

Interactor

M. guttatusErythranthe guttatae0other

Outcome

floral display sizee0

Direction

decreasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“presence of M. guttatus, a competitive species, reduced the total nectar sugar content in L. amplexicaule through a concomitant decrease in nectar volume per flower and in floral display size”