Evolutionary consequences of self-fertilization in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transition from outcrossing to self-fertilization is one of the most common evolutionary changes in plants, yet only about 10-15% of flowering plants are predominantly selfing. To explain this phenomenon, Stebbins proposed that selfing may be an 'evolutionary dead end'. According to this hypothesis, transitions from outcrossing to selfing are irreversible, and selfing lineages suffer from an increased risk of extinction owing to a reduced potential for adaptation. Thus, although selfing can be advantageous in the short term, selfing lineages may be mostly short-lived owing to higher extinction rates. Here, we review recent results relevant to the 'dead-end hypothesis' of selfing and the maintenance of outcrossing over longer evolutionary time periods. In particular, we highlight recent results regarding diversification rates in self-incompatible and self-compatible taxa, and review evidence regarding the accumulation of deleterious mutations in selfing lineages. We conclude that while some aspects of the hypothesis of selfing as a dead end are supported by theory and empirical results, the evolutionary and ecological mechanisms remain unclear. We highlight the need for more studies on the effects of quantitative changes in outcrossing rates and on the potential for adaptation, particularly in selfing plants. In addition, there is growing evidence that transitions to selfing may themselves be drivers of speciation, and future studies of diversification and speciation should investigate this further.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".