THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIOECY FOR SEED DISPERSAL: MODELING THE SEED-SHADOW HANDICAP
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
Recent evidence has suggested that clades of dioecious angiosperms have fewer extant species on average than those of cosexual (hermaphroditic and monoecious) relatives. Reasons for the decrease in speciation rates and/or increase in extinction rates are only beginning to be investigated. One possibility is that dioecious species suffer a competitive disadvantage with cosexuals because only half of the individuals in a dioecious population are seed bearing. When only females produce seed, offspring will be more spatially clumped and will experience more local resource competition than when every individual produces seed. We examine two spatially explicit models to determine the effect of a reduction in seed dispersers on the invasibility and persistence of dioecious populations. Even though dioecious females were allowed to produce twice as many seeds as cosexuals, our results show that a reduction in the number of seed dispersers causes a decrease in the ability of dioecious progeny to find uninhabited sites, thus reducing persistence times. These results suggest that the maintenance of dioecy in the presence of hermaphroditic competitors requires a substantial increase in relative fitness and/or a large dispersal advantage of dioecious seeds.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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