Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40059788›Full record

ReviewAnnals of botany2025

The evolutionary dynamics of plant mating systems: how bias for studying 'interesting' plant reproductive systems could backfire.

Elena M Meyer, Laura F Galloway, Andrew J Eckert

Abstract readDatasetReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Elena M MeyerDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6023-5659
Laura F GallowayDepartment of Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Andrew J EckertDepartment of Biology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsAn 'abominable mystery': angiosperm sexual systems have been a source of both interest and frustration for the botanical community since Darwin. The evolutionary stability, overall frequency and distribution of self-fertilization and mixed-mating systems have been explored in a variety of studies. However, there has been no recent study which directly addresses our knowledge of mating systems across families, the adequacy of existing data or the potential for biases. SCOPE: Here we present an updated dataset of mating systems across flowering plants covering 6781 species and 212 families based on a synthesis of existing reviews and an original literature review using Web of Science. We assess the adequacy of these data by evaluating for bias indicating enrichment of certain families or sexual systems. KEY

resultsWe find that the vast majority of our data on mating systems come from a small number of disproportionally sampled families, and that families with significant proportions of dioecious or monoecious species are much more likely to be undersampled.

conclusionsOur results show that the frequency of selfing in angiosperms is overestimated, possibly due to increased research interest in selfing and mixed-mating systems. This suggests that systematic study bias may mean we know less about this vital facet of plant life than we think.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionMagnoliopsidaPollinationReproductionSelf-Fertilizationangiospermsmating systemsmixed-matingselfingSexual systems

Identifiers

PMID40059788
PMCPMC12401890

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.