Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41108592›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of botany2025

Causes of delayed angiosperm diversification: The photosynthetic revolution, increased opportunity costs of anti-herbivore defenses, selection for qualitative toxins, and acceleration of plant-herbivore coevolution.

Thomas J Givnish

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of botany, 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. Article
  2. Review
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

1 author.

Thomas J GivnishDepartment of Botany, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3166-4566

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Why did it take so long for angiosperms to diversify after they arose? Here I consider the indirect but potentially crucial impact of the "photosynthetic revolution" on plant-herbivore coevolution. Increased vein density in fossil leaves implies a doubling in photosynthesis 125-100 million years ago. Higher photosynthetic rates increase the opportunity cost of anti-herbivore defenses, favoring shifts to chemically diverse, low-cost, low-molecular-weight qualitative toxins (e.g., alkaloids) from chemically stereotyped, high-cost, high-molecular-weight quantitative toxins (e.g., tannins). Given the greater functional significance of incremental changes in defensive compounds of lower molecular weight, shifts to qualitative toxins should accelerate plant-herbivore coevolution and species diversification. The large genome and cell sizes of ferns and gymnosperms should drive lower rates of coevolutionary diversification by decreasing vein density and photosynthetic rates; high vein density found in many euasterids, eurosids, and monocots should drive higher diversification rates. This theory might also explain the general restriction of qualitative toxins to herbaceous plants, given the higher photosynthetic rates of herbs vs. woody plants. Lower hydraulic limitation and selection for small genomes in short, fast-growing, short-lived plants should foster evolution of small cells, fine vein networks, high leaf N levels and photosynthetic rates, reliance on qualitative toxins, and high speciation rates.

Indexed as

Biological CoevolutionBiological EvolutionHerbivoryMagnoliopsidaPhotosynthesisPlant Defense Against HerbivoryPlant LeavesToxins, BiologicalToxins, Biologicalanti‐herbivore defensescoevolutiondifferent defenses in herbs vs. woody plantsopportunity costsphotosynthetic revolutionspecies diversification

Identifiers

PMID41108592
PMCPMC12640479

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.