A phylogenetic subclade analysis of range sizes of endemic woody seed plant species of China: Trait conservatism, diversification rates and evolutionary models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adaptive radiation predicted that diversification rate of species and/or the divergence of trait evolution are declined from ancient to contemporary time due to reduced novel niches, namely the “early burst” model. It is still controversial whether the early burst model is ubiquitous over various taxa for species diversification and/or phenotypic evolution. The applicability of the model on plants has little been tested yet in current literature. To address this question, in the present study, a subclade‐level phylogenetic comparative analysis of range size evolution and diversification rates of 6885 endemic woody seed plant species in China (i.e., species only found in China) was performed. My study showed that phylogenetic signals of range sizes depend on the phylogenetic scope and the sampling of subclades. Early burst model was not supported for the range size evolution for endemic woody plants of China, while the simple Brownian motion model of adaptive radiation had the best fit. Diversification of species over the subclades of the phylogeny showed that young clades have higher diversification rates than old clades, being contradictory to the “early burst” prediction of adaptive radiation. However, a whole‐phylogeny diversification analysis suggests that the BOTHVAR model where speciation rate is decreasing while extinction rate is increasing is the best one to describe the time‐dependent trend of diversification of endemic woody plants of China. Moreover, the evolution of range sizes of woody plants is found to be largely independent to diversification rates of species, deprecating the positive range sizes‐diversification hypothesis. At last, a strong positive relationship between phylogenetic mean and variance of range sizes was observed. In conclusion, the “early burst” model predicted by adaptive radiation might be applied to the diversification rates, but not the range size evolution of endemic woody plants of China. Further studies are required by sampling more taxa and building a high‐quality phylogeny to test and verify the patterns found in the present study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".