ReviewAnnals of botany2026
Do costs of reproduction differ between the sexes of dioecious plants?
Review in Annals of botany, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diverging sex ratios in dioecious Proteaceae are exacerbated by anthropogenic disruptions to the fire cycle.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Environmental context shapes sex-specific costs of reproduction in a dioecious plant.Annals of botany · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCosts of reproduction arise from fitness-based trade-offs between current and future reproduction. Because the average fitness of females and males is constrained to be equal, and because costs of reproduction are paid in units of fitness, the extent to which reproductive costs can differ between the sexes has been called into question. SCOPE: Using expressions that incorporate the trade-off between current and future reproductive fitness, I examine whether costs of reproduction can in principle differ between the sexes. These expressions clarify the types of evidence that could be used to infer divergence in costs of reproduction between the sexes. KEY
resultsCosts of reproduction can differ between the sexes only insofar as females and males can diverge in their expected future reproductive potential. If the two sexes differ in their future reproductive potential and one sex prioritizes future opportunities over current output, that sex should experience lower costs of reproduction.
conclusionsThe expected future reproductive potential of plants is driven by their schedules of survival and reproduction, which are difficult to study for long-lived plants. However, it may be possible to infer differences in the costs of reproduction between females and males by combining two pieces of evidence: sex differences in (1) the magnitude of trade-offs between reproduction and growth or survival; and (2) the propensity to produce offspring after previous bouts of reproduction (e.g. via differences in post-reproductive growth or survival). Evidence for (1) and (2) exists widely, but they have rarely been studied together in dioecious populations, leaving little solid evidence regarding how often costs of reproduction differ between females and males.
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.