The Evolutionary Enigma of Mixed Mating Systems in Plants: Occurrence, Theoretical Explanations, and Empirical Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
▪ Abstract Mixed mating, in which hermaphrodite plant species reproduce by both self- and cross-fertilization, presents a challenging problem for evolutionary biologists. Theory suggests that inbreeding depression, the main selective factor opposing the evolution of selfing, can be purged with self-fertilization, a process that is expected to yield pure strategies of either outcrossing or selfing. Here we present updated evidence suggesting that mixed mating systems are frequent in seed plants. We outline the floral and pollination mechanisms that can lead to intermediate outcrossing, review the theoretical models that address the stability of intermediate outcrossing, and examine relevant empirical evidence. A comparative analysis of estimated inbreeding coefficients and outcrossing rates suggests that mixed mating often evolves despite strong inbreeding depression. The adaptive significance of mixed mating has yet to be fully explained for any species. Recent theoretical and empirical work suggests that future progress will come from a better integration of studies of floral mechanisms, genetics, and ecology, and recognition of how selective pressures vary in space and time.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it