Sex‐specific plasticity of reproductive allocation in response to water depth in a clonal, dioecious macrophyte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Sex-specific differences in reproductive investment contribute to sexual dimorphism in dioecious plants. Along environmental gradients, males and females may plastically adjust reproductive allocation differently because of contrasting reproductive costs. In dioecious macrophytes, variation in water depth is likely to influence reproductive allocation but has not been investigated in detail. METHODS: Vallisneria spinulosa was grown in aquatic mesocosms at water depths of 50, 100 and 150 cm for 14 weeks. Plasticity in allocation was measured to investigate whether sexual dimorphism in reproductive allocation and vegetative growth changed in response to varying water depths. KEY RESULTS: Females invested a higher fraction of resources to sexual reproduction than males across all water depths and decreased proportional allocation to sexual structures in shallow and deep water compared to intermediate water depth. In contrast, males maintained similar sexual allocation across all water depths. Females displayed larger vegetative size than males, despite greater sexual investment, but decreased vegetative biomass more than males in shallow or deep water. The sexes invested similarly in clonal propagation by tubers at all water depths, but a trade-off with sexual reproduction was only evident in females. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that females of V. spinulosa have mechanisms to compensate for the costs of sexual reproduction in heterogeneous environments. Compared to males, females expressed greater plasticity in biomass allocated to sexual reproduction and vegetative growth in response to water depth variation. Environmental variation in underwater light availability probably caused the sex-specific allocation strategies found in V. spinulosa.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".