ArticleMolecular ecology2020
An analysis of mating biases in trees.
Article in Molecular ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complementary Evidence From Historical and Contemporary Gene Dispersal Reveals Contrasting Population Dynamics in a Tropical Tree Species.Evolutionary applications · 2026Article
- Quantifying genetic and genotypic gain gaps in Eucalyptus: the hidden cost of ignoring inbreeding and dominance.Heredity · 2025Article
- Short-distance seed and pollen dispersal in both hunted and intact forests in the lower canopy African rainforest tree, Coula edulis Baill. (Coulaceae).BMC ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Direct evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis of cross-pollination promoted by sex organ reciprocity.The New phytologist · 2022Article
- An analysis of mating biases in trees.Molecular ecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assortative mating is a deviation from random mating based on phenotypic similarity. As it is much better studied in animals than in plants, we investigate for trees whether kinship of realized mating pairs deviates from what is expected from the set of potential mates and use this information to infer mating biases that may result from kin recognition and/or assortative mating. Our analysis covers 20 species of trees for which microsatellite data is available for adult populations (potential mates) as well as seed arrays. We test whether mean relatedness of observed mating pairs deviates from null expectations that only take pollen dispersal distances into account (estimated from the same data set). This allows the identification of elevated as well as reduced kinship among realized mating pairs, indicative of positive and negative assortative mating, respectively. The test is also able to distinguish elevated biparental inbreeding that occurs solely as a result of related pairs growing closer to each other from further assortativeness. Assortative mating in trees appears potentially common but not ubiquitous: nine data sets show mating bias with elevated inbreeding, nine do not deviate significantly from the null expectation, and two show mating bias with reduced inbreeding. While our data sets lack direct information on phenology, our investigation of the phenological literature for each species identifies flowering phenology as a potential driver of positive assortative mating (leading to elevated inbreeding) in trees. Since active kin recognition provides an alternative hypothesis for these patterns, we encourage further investigations on the processes and traits that influence mating patterns in trees.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.