The potential for ploidy level increases and decreases in Crataegus (Rosaceae, Spiraeoideae, tribe Pyreae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike their diploid relatives, some triploid and tetraploid Crataegus frequently produce unreduced megagametophytes. In all cases, pollination is required for successful seed set, but in polyploids, endosperm formation can involve fertilization by either one or both sperm. Apomixis, in which the egg develops parthenogenetically, is widely documented in polyploid Crataegus, and as in many other groups with gametophytic apomeiosis, fertilization of unreduced eggs can also occur. Reciprocal pollinations were made between diploids, triploids, and tetraploids belonging to five taxonomic series in the genus to evaluate opportunities for gene flow between ploidy levels. The ploidy levels of embryo and endosperm in mature seeds, estimated from flow-cytometric DNA measurements, indicate the meiotic or apomeiotic origin of the megagametophyte and whether fertilization has occurred. These experiments demonstrated that although some tetraploids maintain near-obligate apomixis when supplied with pollen from diploids, others produced seeds containing embryos ranging from diploid to hexaploid. Allotriploid embryos were produced when a diploid was provided with pollen from tetraploids. A triploid produced tetraploid embryos when pollinated by a diploid and pentaploid embryos when pollinated by a tetraploid. Gametophytic apomixis in Crataegus thus can be facultative or near-obligate and may be implicated in the formation of interserial hybrids.
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".