LIFE‐HISTORY DIFFERENTIATION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF MONOECY AND DIOECY IN SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA (ALISMATACEAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of monoecious and dioecious populations within plant species is rare. This limits opportunities to investigate the ecological mechanisms responsible for the evolution and maintenance of these contrasting sexual systems. In Sagittaria latifolia, an aquatic flowering plant, monoecious and dioecious populations exist in close geographic proximity but occupy distinct wetland habitats differing in the relative importance of disturbance and competition, respectively. Life-history theory predicts contrasting evolutionary responses to these environmental conditions. We propose that the maintenance of monoecy and dioecy in S. latifolia is governed by ecological selection of divergent life-history strategies in contrasting habitats. Here we evaluate this hypothesis by comparing components of growth and reproduction between monoecious and dioecious populations under four conditions: natural populations, a uniform glasshouse environment, a common garden in which monoecious and dioecious populations and their F1 progeny were compared, and a transplant experiment using shaded and unshaded plots in a freshwater marsh. Plants from dioecious populations were larger in size and produced heavier corms in comparison with monoecious populations. Monoecious populations flowered earlier and produced more flowers, clonal ramets, and corms than dioecious populations. The life-history differences between the sexual systems were shown to have a quantitative genetic basis, with F1 progeny generally exhibiting intermediate trait values. Survival was highest for each sexual system in field plots that most closely resembled the habitats in which monoecious (unshaded) and dioecious (shaded) populations grow. These results demonstrate that monoecious and dioecious populations exhibit contrasting patterns of investment in traits involved with growth and reproduction. Selection for divergent life histories between monoecious and dioecious populations of S. latifolia appears to be the principal mechanism maintaining the integrity of the two sexual systems in areas of geographic overlap.
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".