Plant sex and the evolution of plant defenses against herbivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of plant-herbivore interactions to the ecology and evolution of terrestrial ecosystems, the evolutionary factors contributing to variation in plant defenses against herbivores remain unresolved. We used a comparative phylogenetic approach to examine a previously untested hypothesis (Recombination-Mating System Hypothesis) that posits that reduced sexual reproduction limits adaptive evolution of plant defenses against arthropod herbivores. To test this hypothesis we focused on the evening primrose family (Onagraceae), which includes both sexual and functionally asexual species. Ancestral state reconstructions on a 5-gene phylogeny of the family revealed between 18 and 21 independent transitions between sexual and asexual reproduction. Based on these analyses, we examined susceptibility to herbivores on 32 plant species representing 15 independent transitions. Generalist caterpillars consumed 32% more leaf tissue, gained 13% greater mass, and experienced 21% higher survival on functionally asexual than on sexual plant species. Survival of a generalist feeding mite was 19% higher on asexual species. In a field experiment, generalist herbivores consumed 64% more leaf tissue on asexual species. By contrast, a specialist beetle fed more on sexual than asexual species, suggesting that a tradeoff exists between the evolution of defense to generalist and specialist herbivores. Measures of putative plant defense traits indicate that both secondary compounds and physical leaf characteristics may mediate this tradeoff. These results support the Recombination-Mating System Hypothesis and suggest that variation in sexual reproduction among plant species may play an important, yet overlooked, role in shaping the macroevolution of plant defenses against arthropod herbivores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".