Hybridization and the reproductive pathways mediating gene flow between native<i>Malus coronaria</i>and domestic apple,<i>M. domestica</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene flow from crops to wild populations is of increasing scientific and public interest, but the potential effects are not well understood when taxa differ in ploidy. We examined the potential for hybridization and gene flow between the introduced diploid domestic apple, Malus domestica Borkh., and the tetraploid crabapple, Malus coronaria (L.) Miller. Using ploidy and isozyme markers, we inferred the incidence of hybrids in natural populations (adults and open-pollinated seed) and in controlled crosses. Geographic range and flowering time overlapped sufficiently for cross-pollination between domestic apple and M. coronaria. Heterospecific crosses produced as many fruit and seeds as conspecific pollinations on M. coronaria mothers. Some seeds from heterospecific pollinations were hybrids, while others were apomictic in origin. In a natural population, all adult trees tested were tetraploid, but open-pollinated seeds varied in ploidy: 57% tetraploid (sexual or apomictic); 7.7% diploid (apomictic); 7.4% hexaploid or octaploid (sexual); and 27.5% triploid or pentaploid hybrids. Despite previous reports showing that the native and introduced gene pools remain distinct, the high proportion of hybrid seeds suggests there is significant potential for gene flow from domestic apples into native M. coronaria populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".