Do costs of reproduction differ between the sexes of dioecious plants?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Costs of reproduction arise from fitness-based trade-offs between current and future reproduction. Because the average fitness of females and males is constrained to be equal, and because costs of reproduction are paid in units of fitness, the extent to which reproductive costs can differ between the sexes has been called into question. SCOPE: Using expressions that incorporate the trade-off between current and future reproductive fitness, I examine whether costs of reproduction can in principle differ between the sexes. These expressions clarify the types of evidence that could be used to infer divergence in costs of reproduction between the sexes. KEY RESULTS: Costs of reproduction can differ between the sexes only insofar as females and males can diverge in their expected future reproductive potential. If the two sexes differ in their future reproductive potential and one sex prioritizes future opportunities over current output, that sex should experience lower costs of reproduction. CONCLUSIONS: The expected future reproductive potential of plants is driven by their schedules of survival and reproduction, which are difficult to study for long-lived plants. However, it may be possible to infer differences in the costs of reproduction between females and males by combining two pieces of evidence: sex differences in (1) the magnitude of trade-offs between reproduction and growth or survival; and (2) the propensity to produce offspring after previous bouts of reproduction (e.g. via differences in post-reproductive growth or survival). Evidence for (1) and (2) exists widely, but they have rarely been studied together in dioecious populations, leaving little solid evidence regarding how often costs of reproduction differ between females and males.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".