Do Genetic Drift and Gene Flow Affect the Geographic Distribution of Female Plants in Gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in population sex ratio is particularly pronounced in gynodioecious angiosperms. Extremely high female frequencies in gynodioecious populations cannot be readily explained by selective forces alone. To assess the contributions of drift and gene flow to extreme sex-ratio variation, we documented sex ratio and population size in 92 populations of Lobelia siphilitica across its range and genotyped plants using plastid and nuclear genetic markers. Similarity in spatial patterns of genetic and demographic variables may suggest that drift and/or gene flow have contributed to population sex-ratio variation in L. siphilitica. We found strong spatial structuring of extremely high female frequencies: populations with >50% female plants are restricted to the south−central portion of the range. However, we did not detect any spatial structuring in population size nor metrics of genetic diversity, suggesting that extreme variation in female frequency is not strongly affected by drift or gene flow. Extreme sex-ratio variation is frequently observed in gynodioecious plants, but its causes are difficult to identify. Further investigation into mechanisms that create or maintain the spatial structure of sex ratios in gynodioecious species will provide much needed insight.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".