BREEDING SYSTEMS AND SEED SIZE IN A NEOTROPICAL FLORA: TESTING EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A well-known, but largely untested, prediction in plant reproductive ecology is that dioecious taxa should produce larger, more, higher-quality, or better-defended seeds than cosexual taxa. Using a data set composed of 972 species in 104 families, representing the flora of the Tambopata Wildlife Reserve (Madre de Dios, Peru), we evaluated the first component of this prediction, examining ecological and evolutionary relationships between breeding system and mean seed size with two kinds of tests. First, we conducted cross-species analyses to determine whether species with different breeding systems differed significantly with respect to mean individual seed size. Second, we used a hypothesized phylogeny to identify pairs of the most closely related taxa or clades within the Tambopata community that differed with respect to breeding system. Comparing pair members allowed us to determine whether evolutionary divergence in breeding system (between taxa with unisexual vs. cosexual individuals) was consistently associated with evolutionary change in seed size. In both analyses, we controlled for potentially confounding effects of growth form by examining these relationships within woody and nonwoody taxa. Cross-species analyses revealed that dioecious species produced larger seeds than cosexual species among woody species, shrubs, lianas (each growth form analyzed separately), and all species pooled, but not among trees. Phylogenetically independent contrasts upheld the significant association between breeding system and seed size among woody taxa, lianas, and all taxa pooled, but not among shrubs. We discuss the implications of our findings for evolutionary hypotheses regarding associations between dioecy and seed size.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".