THE EVOLUTION AND MAINTENANCE OF MONOECY AND DIOECY IN SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA (ALISMATACEAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant species rarely exhibit both monoecious and dioecious sexual systems. This limits opportunities to investigate the consequences of combined versus separate sex function on mating patterns and genetic variation and the analysis of factors responsible for the evolution and maintenance of the two sexual systems. Populations of the North American clonal aquatic Sagittaria latifolia are usually either monoecious or dioecious and often grow in close geographic proximity. We investigated mating patterns, genetic structure, and relationships between the two sexual systems using allozyme variation in populations from southern Ontario, Canada. As predicted, selfing rates in monoecious populations (n = 6, mean = 0.41) were significantly higher than in dioecious populations (n = 6, mean = 0.11). Moreover, marker-based estimates of inbreeding depression (delta) indicated strong selection against inbred offspring in both monoecious (mean delta = 0.83) and dioecious (mean delta = 0.84) populations. However, the difference in selfing rate between the sexual systems was not reflected in contrasting levels of genetic variation. Our surveys of 12 loci in 15 monoecious and 11 dioecious populations revealed no significant differences in the proportion of polymorphic loci (P), number of alleles per locus (A), or observed and expected heterozygosity (H(o) and H(e), respectively). Strong inbreeding depression favoring survival of outcrossed offspring may act to maintain similar levels of diversity between monoecious and dioecious populations. Despite geographical overlap between the two sexual systems in southern Ontario, a dendrogram of genetic relationships indicated two distinct clusters of populations largely corresponding to monoecious and dioecious populations. Reproductive isolation between monoecious and dioecious populations appears to be governed, in part, by observed differences in habitat and life history. We suggest that selfing and inbreeding depression in monoecious populations are important in the transition from monoecy to dioecy and that the maintenance of distinct sexual systems in S. latifolia is governed by interactions between ecology, life history, and mating.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".