Sexual conflict in protandrous flowers and the evolution of gynodioecy*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual interference between male and female function in hermaphrodite plants is reduced by protandry. In environments with insufficient pollinator service, prolongation of male function owing to limited pollen removal could restrict the duration of female function and lower seed production. We provide evidence that this form of sexual conflict has played a role in the spread of females in gynodioecious populations of Cyananthus delavayi in the pollen-limited environments in which this subalpine species occurs. Using field experiments involving artificial pollen removal from the strongly protandrous flowers of hermaphrodites, we demonstrated a trade-off between male- and female-phase duration with no influence on overall floral longevity. Pollen removal at the beginning of anthesis resulted in hermaphrodite seed production matching that of females. In contrast, restricted pollen removal increased the duration of male function at the expense of female function lowering maternal fertility compared to females. This pattern was evident in five populations with females experiencing a twofold average seed fertility advantage compared to hermaphrodites. Gynodioecy often appears to evolve from protandrous ancestors and pollen limitation is widespread in flowering plants suggesting that sexual conflict may play an unappreciated role in the evolution of this form of sexual dimorphism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".