ReviewAnnals of botany2025
The evolutionary dynamics of plant mating systems: how bias for studying 'interesting' plant reproductive systems could backfire.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The consequences of partial clonality on the spatiotemporal genetic structure of the red alga Chondria tumulosa (Ceramiales, Rhodophyta).Journal of phycology · 2026Article
- A clonal legacy? Reproductive mode variation in hard- and soft-bottom Gracilaria vermiculophylla populations.Journal of phycology · 2026Article
- Joint test of historical vs. contemporary biogeography supports abundant center hypothesis shaping spatial patterns of self-fertilization.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- Navigating the Semantic Labyrinth of "Sex" in the Study of Reproductive Trait Evolution.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.