ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2022
On the function of flower number: disentangling fertility from pollinator-mediated selection.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Costs of reproduction in flowering plants.The New phytologist · 2025Review
- Context-dependent conflicting selection on flowering phenology.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- On the function of flower number: disentangling fertility from pollinator-mediated selection.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.