Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40619945›Full record

ArticleThe New phytologist2025

Dioecy in a wind-pollinated herb explained by disruptive selection on sex allocation via inbreeding avoidance.

Kai-Hsiu Chen, John R Pannell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Sex-allocation trade-offs and their genetic architecture revealed by experimental evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Kai-Hsiu ChenDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8056-5858
John R PannellDepartment of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Biophore Building, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0098-7074

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung SNSF grant 310030_185196
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The evolution of dioecy from hermaphroditism is widely thought to be a response to disruptive selection favoring males and females, driven by advantages of inbreeding avoidance, sexual specialization, or both. It has hitherto been difficult to uncouple the importance of these two hypotheses. We use phenotypes produced by experimental evolution to test the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis in populations from which sexual specialization can be effectively ruled out. We estimate the selfing rate and the shape of fitness gain curves under scenarios with and without inbreeding depression in experimental populations of wind-pollinated Mercurialis annua with high variation in sex allocation. Our results confirm a phenotypic trade-off between male and female allocation in M. annua. Individual selfing rates increased with pollen production. This dependence led to strong disruptive selection on sex allocation due to its interaction with the mating system under the scenario of high inbreeding depression, especially for plants of medium and large sizes. Taken together, our results demonstrate that inbreeding avoidance on its own can lead to disruptive selection on sex allocation, favoring the selection and maintenance of dioecy under wind pollination without associated benefits of sexual specialization.

Indexed as

InbreedingPollinationSelection, GeneticWindPhenotypeanemophilyevolutionary branchinggeitonogamymonoecypaternityselection gradientsexual conflictsexual system

Identifiers

PMID40619945
PMCPMC12371145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.