Leaf size versus leaf numbertrade-offs in dioecious angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the possible role of leaf size/number trade-offs for the interpretation of leaf size dimorphism in dioecious plant species. Total above-ground biomass (both male and female) for three herbaceous dioecious species and individual shoots (from both male and female plants) for three woody dioecious species were sampled to record individual leaf dry mass, number of leaves, dry mass of residual above-ground tissue (all remaining non-leaf biomass), number of flowers/inflorescences (for herbaceous species) and number of branches. For two out of three woody species and two out of three herbaceous species examined, male plants produced smaller leaves but with higher leafing intensity—i.e. more leaves per unit of supporting (residual) shoot tissue or plant body mass—compared with females. Male and female plants, however, did not differ in shoot or plant body mass or branching intensity. We interpret these results as possible evidence for a dimorphic leaf deployment strategy that promotes both male and female function, respectively. In male plants, capacity as a pollen donor may be favored by selection for a broadly spaced floral display, hence favoring relatively high leafing intensity because this provides more numerous axillary meristems that can be deployed for flowering, thus requiring a relatively small leaf as a trade-off. In one herbaceous species, higher leafing intensity in males was associated with greater flower production than in females. In contrast, in female plants, selection favors a relatively large leaf, we propose, because this promotes greater capacity for localized photosynthate production, thus supporting the locally high energetic cost of axillary fruit and seed development, which in turn requires a relatively low leafing intensity as a trade-off.
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".