Gender dimorphic species flower earlier than cosexuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The timing of flowering is central to plant life‐history as it initiates sexual reproduction, thus controlling plant interaction with pollinators and climate factors. A fundamental question is: what are the drivers of flowering time strategy in a species? We assembled mean flowering times for the indigenous dicotyledonous flora of New Zealand ( n = 1303 species, including 177 tree species) and used phylogenetic models to determine how climate, plant traits, and evolutionary history (phylogeny) controlled interspecific variation in flowering times across an island flora. Across all species, on average, flowering was 19 days earlier in abiotically pollinated species relative to biotically pollinated species, 23 days earlier in woody species, relative to herbaceous species, 45 days earlier in species with fleshy‐fruits, relative to species with dry fruits and 31 days earlier in gender dimorphic species, relative to cosexual species. Species in warmer and drier climates flowered earlier than those growing under cool, moist climates. When all factors were considered together, the strongest influence on flowering time was sexual system: gender dimorphic species flowered earlier than cosexuals, even after accounting for other factors. Synthesis . We propose that these differences in flowering time arise because of sexual selection for early male flowering and sexual conflict between male and female individuals. As sexual selection and conflict may be stronger in gender dimorphic species than in cosexual species, our study suggests that plant sexual system is an important force structuring the phenology of plant communities, with potential consequences for ecological interactions and ecosystem processes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".