Variation in ovule and seed size and associated size–number trade‐offs in angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike pollen and seed size, the extent and causes of variation in ovule size remain unexplored. Based on 45 angiosperm species, we assessed whether intra- and interspecific variation in ovule size is consistent with cost minimization during ovule production or allows maternal plants to dominate conflict with their seeds concerning resource investment. Despite considerable intraspecific variation in ovule volume (mean CV = 0.356), ovule production by few species was subject to a size-number trade-off. Among the sampled species, ovule volume varied two orders of magnitude, whereas seed volume varied four orders of magnitude. Ovule volume varied positively among species with flower mass and negatively with ovule number. Tenuinucellate ovules were generally larger that crassinucellate ovules, and species with apical placentation (which mostly have uniovulate ovaries) had smaller ovules than those with other placentation types. Seed volume varied positively among species with fruit mass and seed development time, but negatively with seed number. Seeds grew a median 93-fold larger than the ovules from which they originated. Our results provide equivocal evidence that selection minimizes ovule size to allow efficient resource allocation after fertilization, but stronger evidence that ovule size affords maternal plants an advantage in parent-offspring conflict.
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".