MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EVOLUTION OF LEAF FORM IN MARSILEACEOUS FERNS: EVIDENCE FOR HETEROCHRONY

2008· article· en· W2038663674 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kathleen M. Pryer, David J. Hearn

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHeterochronyBiologyEvolutionary biologyBiological evolutionZoologyOntogenyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using an explicit phylogenetic framework, ontogenetic patterns of leaf form are compared among the three genera of marsileaceous ferns (Marsilea, Regnellidium, and Pilularia) with the outgroup Asplenium to address the hypothesis that heterochrony played a role in their evolution. We performed a Fourier analysis on a developmental sequence of leaves from individuals of these genera. Principal components analysis of the harmonic coefficients was used to characterize the ontogenetic trajectories of leaf form in a smaller dimensional space. Results of this study suggest that the "evolutionary juvenilization" observed in these leaf sequences is best described using a mixed model of heterochrony (accelerated growth rate and early termination at a simplified leaf form). The later stages of the ancestral, more complex, ontogenetic pattern were lost in Marsileaceae, giving rise to the simplified adult leaves of Marsilea, Regnellidium, and Pilularia. Life-history traits such as ephemeral and uncertain habitats, high reproductive rates, and accelerated maturation, which are typical for marsileaceous ferns, suggest that they may be "r strategists." The evidence for heterochrony presented here illustrates that it has resulted in profound ecological and morphological consequences for the entire life history of Marsileaceae.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207