The evolution of plant reproductive systems: how often are transitions irreversible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flowering plants are characterized by striking variation in reproductive systems, and the evolutionary lability of their sexual traits is often considered a major driver of lineage diversification. But, evolutionary transitions in reproductive form and function are never entirely unconstrained and many changes exhibit strong directionality. Here, I consider why this occurs by examining transitions in pollination, mating and sexual systems, some of which have been considered irreversible. Among pollination systems, shifts from bee to hummingbird pollination are rarely reversible, whereas transitions from animal to wind pollination are occasionally reversed. Specialized pollination systems can become destabilized through a loss of pollinator service resulting in a return to generalized pollination, or more commonly a reliance on self-pollination. Homomorphic and heteromorphic self-incompatibility systems have multiple origins but breakdown to self-compatibility occurs much more frequently with little evidence for subsequent gains, at least over short time-spans. Similarly, numerous examples of the shift from outcrossing to predominant self-fertilization are known, but cases of reversal are very limited supporting the view that autogamy usually represents an evolutionary dead-end. The evolution of dioecy from hermaphroditism has also been considered irreversible, although recent evidence indicates that the occurrence of sex inconstancy and hybridization can lead to the origin of derived sexual systems from dioecy. The directionality of many transitions clearly refutes the notion of unconstrained reproductive flexibility, but novel adaptive solutions generally do not retrace earlier patterns of trait evolution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".