Data from: Clonal genetic structure and diversity in populations of an aquatic plant with combined versus separate sexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonality is often implicated in models of the evolution of dioecy, but few studies have explicitly compared clonal structure between plant sexual systems, or between the sexes in dioecious populations. Here, we exploit the occurrence of monoecy and dioecy in clonal Sagittaria latifola (Alismataceae) to evaluate two main hypotheses: (1) clone sizes are smaller in monoecious than dioecious populations, because of constraints imposed on clone size by costs associated with geitonogamy; (2) in dioecious populations, male clones are larger and flower more often than female clones because of sex-differential reproductive costs. Differences in clone size and flowering could result in discordance between ramet- and genet-based sex ratios. We used spatially explicit sampling to address these hypotheses in 10 monoecious and 11 dioecious populations of S. latifolia at the northern range limit in eastern N. America. In contrast to our predictions, monoecious clones were significantly larger than dioecious clones, probably due to their higher rates of vegetative growth and corm production, and in dioecious populations there was no difference in clone size between females and males; ramet- and genet-based sex ratios were therefore highly correlated. Genotypic diversity declined with latitude for both sexual systems, but monoecious populations exhibited lower genotypic richness. Differences in life history between the sexual systems of S. latifolia appear to be the most important determinants of clonal structure and diversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".