Hybridization between<i>Pyrola grandiflora</i>and<i>Pyrola minor</i>in West Greenland: a tension zone maintained by clonality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific hybridization may lead to novel hybrid lineages and transfer of genetic material, possibly enabling species to expand into new habitats. Alternatively, hybrids may be inviable or sterile, constraining movement of parental species and genes into each others range. Pyrola minor (L.) and Pyrola grandiflora (Rad.) hybridize on Disko Island in Greenland. A recent study found most hybrids to be F1plants produced by P. minor mothers. Here, we test if later generation hybrids are indeed absent in a larger sample, using morphological and molecular markers. We further test if unidirectional hybridization is due to reproductive barriers. Intermediate plants were all F1hybrids from P. minor mother plants. Our analyses indicate that hybrids originated from few hybridization events and have been maintained by clonal reproduction since then. Barriers to pollen flow between the species result from a combination of few pollinators, different flower morphology and phenology, high proportions of abnormal pollen in hybrids, and reduced pollen tube growth of heterospecific and hybrid pollen. In general, pollen from P. grandiflora grew better than pollen from P. minor, which may explain the unidirectional hybridization. Hybridization between P. grandiflora and P. minor therefore seems to operate like a tension zone in which F1hybrids are maintained by clonal propagation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".