COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF SEX-RATIO VARIATION IN DIOECIOUS FLOWERING PLANTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dioecious plant species commonly exhibit deviations from the equilibrium expectation of 1:1 sex ratio, but the mechanisms governing this variation are poorly understood. Here, we use comparative analyses of 243 species, representing 123 genera and 61 families to investigate ecological and genetic correlates of variation in the operational (flowering) sex ratio. After controlling for phylogenetic nonindependence, we examined the influence of growth form, clonality, fleshy fruits, pollen and seed dispersal vector, and the possession of sex chromosomes on sex-ratio variation. Male-biased flowering sex ratios were twice as common as female-biased ratios. Male bias was associated with long-lived growth forms (e.g., trees) and biotic seed dispersal and fleshy fruits, whereas female bias was associated with clonality, especially for herbaceous species, and abiotic pollen dispersal. Female bias occurred in species with sex chromosomes and there was some evidence for a greater degree of bias in those with heteromorphic sex chromosomes. Although the role of interactions among these correlates require further study, our results indicate that sex-based differences in costs of reproduction, pollen and seed dispersal mechanisms and sex chromosomes can each play important roles in affecting flowering sex ratios in dioecious plants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".