THE EVOLUTION OF MALES: SUPPORT FOR PREDICTIONS FROM SEX ALLOCATION THEORY USING MATING ARRAYS OF SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA (ALISMATACEAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investment in male function should often yield diminishing fitness returns, subjecting the evolution of male phenotypes to substantial constraints. In plants, the subdivision of male function via the gradual presentation of pollen might minimize these constraints by preventing the saturation of receptive stigmas. Here, we report on an investigation of (1) patterns of investment in male function by plants in hermaphroditic (monoecious) and dioecious populations of Sagittaria latifolia, and (2) patterns of siring success by males versus hermaphrodites in experimental mating arrays. We show that in natural populations, males from dioecious populations had greater investment in male function than hermaphrodites in monoecious populations. However, as a proportion of total flower production, males presented substantially fewer flowers at once than hermaphrodites. In comparison with hermaphrodites, therefore, males prolonged the period over which they presented pollen. In mating arrays comprised of females, males, and hermaphrodites, siring success by males increased linearly with flower production. This finding is consistent with the existence of a linear gain curve for male function in S. latifolia and supports the idea that the gradual deployment of male function enables plants to avoid diminishing returns on the investment in male function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".