Origin, elevation, and evolutionary success of hybrids and polyploids in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although it is well established that many clades have polyploidization in their evolutionary history, the question of whether polyploidization is actually adaptive is far from resolved. It has been hypothesized that the evolutionary advantages of polyploidy are context-dependent, although we have yet to clearly identify the geographical or ecological contexts in which polyploids are more common. One reason why polyploidy may be displaying idiosyncratic ecological patterns is that previous comparative studies have often not separated polyploids into allopolyploids and autopolyploids, and we posit that there may be important differences in the origin and evolutionary success between the two types. Here, we examine the distribution of allopolyploid, autopolyploid, and diploid hybrid species along an elevation gradient from sea level to ∼4500 m within British Columbia, Canada, and find that polyploids (especially those of hybrid origin) are disproportionately present at high elevations. These processes of hybridization and polyploidization may contribute to species richness patterns observed in British Columbia. We discuss whether the associations are more likely to be the result of differential ecological tolerance or differential origination rates of allopolyploids at higher elevations. These findings highlight the importance of studying both hybridization and polyploidy when considering the diversification process in plants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".