Why is gynodioecy a rare but widely distributed sexual system? Lessons from the Lamiaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gynodioecy, a sexual system where females and hermaphrodites co-occur, is found in << 1% of angiosperm species. To understand why gynodioecy is rare, we need to understand why females are maintained in some lineages, but not in others. We modelled the evolution of gynodioecy in the Lamiaceae, and investigated whether transition rates between gynodioecious and nongynodioecious states varied across the family. We also investigated whether the evolution of gynodioecy was correlated with the evolution of a herbaceous growth form and temperate distribution. Transition rates differed between Lamiaceae subfamilies. In the Nepetoideae, there were many transitions towards gynodioecy (n = 11), but also many reversions to nongynodioecy (n = 29). In addition, a herbaceous growth form, but not a temperate distribution, affected the rate of transitions both towards and away from gynodioecy; transitions towards gynodioecy occurred ˜16 times more frequently and transitions away from gynodioecy occurred ˜11 times more frequently in herbaceous lineages than in woody lineages. Within the Lamiaceae, lineages in which gynodioecy has frequently evolved also have a high rate of reversions to the nongynodioecious state. Consequently, to understand why gynodioecy is rare, we need to understand why sexual systems are more evolutionarily labile in some lineages than in others.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".