Present day risk of extinction may exacerbate the lower species richness of dioecious clades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Dioecious clades have been observed to have lower species richness than their non‐dioecious sister groups indicating that dioecious species experience higher extinction rates and (or) lower speciation rates. To determine whether current threats to biodiversity may exacerbate this pattern, we examined the threat to exclusively dioecious families of angiosperms among the 13,013 species of threatened plants included in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. When examined phylogenetically, dioecious families had proportionally more species listed than their sister groups. We then examined whether ecological traits correlated with dioecy, namely tropical distribution, woody growth form, and fleshy fruits, are associated with having higher proportions of threatened species. Ignoring breeding system, woody growth form was the only trait that was associated with a greater than expected proportion of threatened species per family. Red‐Listed dioecious families were more likely to have a woody growth form than non‐dioecious families. Woody growth habit is likely contributing to the higher incidence of dioecious species being at risk of extinction but is not solely responsible for the pattern because higher risk within dioecious groups was also apparent in a comparison of exclusively woody sister‐group pairs. Our results indicate that dioecious plants may warrant special attention in conservation practices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".