Selection on floral and carbon uptake traits of <i>Lobelia siphilitica</i> is similar in females and hermaphrodites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism is common in plants and animals. Although this dimorphism is often assumed to be adaptive, natural selection has rarely been measured on sexually dimorphic traits of plants. We measured phenotypic selection via seed set on two floral and four carbon uptake traits of female and hermaphrodite Lobelia siphilitica. Because females can reproduce only via seeds, which are costlier than pollen, we predicted that females with smaller flowers and enhanced carbon uptake would have higher fitness, resulting in either sex morph-specific directional selection or stabilizing selection for different optimal trait values in females and hermaphrodites. We found that directional selection on one carbon uptake trait differed between females and hermaphrodites. We did not detect significant stabilizing selection on traits of either sex morph. Our results provide little support for the hypothesis that sexual dimorphism in gynodioecious plants evolved in response to sex morph-specific selection.
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".