Correlated evolution of mating system and floral display traits in flowering plants and its implications for the distribution of mating system variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reduced allocation to structures for pollinator attraction is predicted in selfing species. We explored the association between outcrossing and floral display in a broad sample of angiosperms. We used the demonstrated relationship to test for bias against selfing species in the outcrossing rate distribution, the shape of which has relevance for the stability of mixed mating. Relationships between outcrossing rate, flower size, flower number and floral display, measured as the product of flower size and number, were examined using phylogenetically independent contrasts. The distribution of floral displays among species in the outcrossing rate database was compared with that of a random sample of the same flora. The outcrossing rate was positively associated with the product of flower size and number; individually, components of display were less strongly related to outcrossing. Compared with a random sample, species in the outcrossing rate database showed a deficit of small floral display sizes. We found broad support for reduced allocation to attraction in selfing species. We suggest that covariation between mating systems and total allocation to attraction can explain the deviation from expected trade-offs between flower size and number. Our results suggest a bias against estimating outcrossing rates in the lower half of the distribution, but not specifically against highly selfing species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".