MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980955750 · doi:10.2307/3558451

Sex‐biased seed predation and the maintenance of females in a gynodioecious plant

2001· article· en· W1980955750 on OpenAlexafffund
M. A. Marshall, Fred R. Ganders

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGynodioecyBiologyPredationSeed predationHermaphroditePopulationSterilityNatural population growthOffspringEcologyDioecyZoologyBotanyPollenSeed dispersalBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated genetic and ecological factors contributing to the maintenance of females in populations of the gynodioecious plant, Sidalcea hendersonii (Malvaceae). Our crossing experiments indicated that male sterility is controlled by a dominant nuclear allele. Nuclear determination of sex theoretically requires much higher female fitness to account for the high frequency of female plants often observed during surveys of S. hendersonii populations. Females were, in fact, shown to have higher fitness in an experimental population, producing more viable seed and surviving offspring than hermaphrodite plants. In natural populations, however, differences in viable seed production were not evident unless seed predation was considered. Sex-biased seed predation appears to play an important role in the maintenance of gynodioecy in S. hendersonii. In populations with high female frequencies, weevil larvae destroyed significantly more seeds from hermaphrodite plants than females, substantially reducing their seed production. To our knowledge, this study provides the first evidence that sex-biased predation may be responsible for high female frequencies in natural populations of a gynodioecious species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207