Effects of abiotic factors and species interactions on estimates of male plant function: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of angiosperms are hermaphroditic with total fitness comprised of both male and female components of reproduction. However, most studies examining the effects of abiotic factors and species interactions on fitness have focussed on female reproduction, potentially biasing our understanding of the consequences of environmental factors on total fitness. Here, we use meta-analysis to test how environmental factors affect male function. We obtained 278 effect sizes from 96 studies that measured male function responses to manipulated environmental factors. We found significant effects of abiotic factors and species interactions on estimates of male function, with responses varying depending on environmental factor identity. Male and female responses were correlated for abiotic factor manipulations, but varied based on the type of species interaction (antagonistic or mutualistic). This suggests that measuring only female function may misrepresent whole-plant reproduction depending on context. Finally, we found differences amongst components of male function in response to environmental factors, suggesting that some male function estimates may fail to capture the effects of environmental factors on male fitness. Our results demonstrate the importance of incorporating male function into ecological and evolutionary studies to provide a more accurate understanding of the effects of environmental factors on total fitness.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".