Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36448279›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022

On the function of flower number: disentangling fertility from pollinator-mediated selection.

Estelle Barbot, Mathilde Dufaÿ, Jeanne Tonnabel, Cécile Godé, Isabelle De Cauwer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Estelle BarbotUniv. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8198 - Evo-Eco-Paleo, F-59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6790-2429
Mathilde DufaÿCEFE, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, Univ. Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, EPHE, IRD, Montpellier, France.
Jeanne TonnabelISEM, Univ. Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France.
Cécile GodéUniv. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8198 - Evo-Eco-Paleo, F-59000 Lille, France.
Isabelle De CauwerUniv. Lille, CNRS, UMR 8198 - Evo-Eco-Paleo, F-59000 Lille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In animal-pollinated angiosperms, the 'male-function' hypothesis claims that male reproductive success (RS) should benefit from large floral displays, through pollinator attraction, while female RS is expected to be mainly limited by resource availability. As appealing as this theory might be, studies comparing selection strength on flower number in both sexes rarely document the expected asymmetry. This discrepancy could arise because flower number impacts both pollinator attraction and overall gamete number. In this study, we artificially manipulate floral displays to disentangle the fertility versus pollinator attraction components of selection, both in terms of mating and RS. In females, flower number was under strong fertility selection, as predicted in the absence of pollen limitation. By contrast, in males, flower number was mainly under sexual selection, which in turn increased male RS. However, these selection patterns were not different in males with artificially increased floral displays. This suggests that sexual selection acting on flower number in males does not occur because flower number increases pollinator attraction, but rather because more pollen is available to disperse on more mates. Our study illustrates the power of disentangling various components of selection with potentially sex-specific effects for understanding the evolution of sexual dimorphism.

Indexed as

FertilityMagnoliopsidaAnimalsFemaleFlowersMaleReproductionSexgametes‘male-function’ hypothesisphenotypic manipulationpollinator attractionsexual dimorphismsexual selection

Identifiers

PMID36448279
PMCPMC9709571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.