ReviewThe New phytologist2025
Costs of reproduction in flowering plants.
Review in The New phytologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phenology-Dependent Sex Identification in MaturePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of Climate and Water Limitation on Reproductive Traits and Trait Divergence Across Soil Boundaries in a Serpentine-Tolerant Annual Herb.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Diverging sex ratios in dioecious Proteaceae are exacerbated by anthropogenic disruptions to the fire cycle.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Manifold limits on seed production by individual flowering plants.American journal of botany · 2026Article
- Environmental context shapes sex-specific costs of reproduction in a dioecious plant.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Do costs of reproduction differ between the sexes of dioecious plants?Annals of botany · 2026Review
- Experimental thinning reduces inter-ovary competition among and within inflorescences.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Seasonal climate drives population growth but not costs of reproduction of a perennial wildflower.Ecology · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Costs of reproduction arise when investments into current reproduction reduce future reproductive fitness. Studies on reproductive costs use diverse approaches, including the analysis of gene expression, physiology, trade-offs between reproduction and growth/survival, and the impact of reproductive investments on population growth. These studies demonstrate that reproductive trade-offs have far-reaching effects on plants, affect their fitness, and are therefore important for shaping the evolution of life histories. However, not all studies have detected costs of reproduction, and c. 90% of these were conducted in natural populations, where controlling for variation in plant resource status is challenging. For dioecious plants, there is a common perception that fruit production should result in greater costs of reproduction for females than males, but divergent reproductive costs between the sexes are not supported by studies of reproductive trade-offs in dioecious plants. Other aspects of reproductive costs remain poorly understood, including ecological costs of reproduction, the fitness effects of reproductive trade-offs involving growth or physiological processes, and how the male sex role influences reproductive costs. Progress will be enabled by the use of measurements that allow for easier comparisons across studies and by more clearly distinguishing between the processes that contribute to current vs future reproductive fitness.
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.