MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323920875 · doi:10.1002/ajb2.16153

Sex‐specific outbreeding advantages and sexual dimorphism in the seedlings of dioecious trees

2023· article· en· W4323920875 on OpenAlexaff
Yonghua Zhang, Wei Lin, Chengjin Chu, Ming Ni

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOutbreeding depressionDioecySexual dimorphismSeedlingGynodioecyPollenEcologyBotanyZoologyInbreedingDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE: Dioecious trees are important components of many forest ecosystems. Outbreeding advantage and sexual dimorphism are two major mechanisms that explain the persistence of dioecious plants; however, they have rarely been studied in dioecious trees. METHODS: We investigated the influence of sex and genetic distance between parental trees (GDPT) on the growth and functional traits of multiple seedlings of a dioecious tree, Diospyros morrisiana. RESULTS: We found significant positive relationships between GDPT and seedling sizes and tissue density. However, the positive outbreeding effects on seedling growth mainly manifested in female seedlings, but were not prominent in males. Among seedlings, the male ones generally had higher biomass and leaf area than female seedlings, but such differences diminished as GDPT increased. CONCLUSIONS: Our research highlights that outbreeding advantage in plants can be sex-specific and that sexual dimorphism begins from the seedling stage of dioecious trees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207