The Paradox of Clonality and the Evolution of Self-Incompatibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the January issue of New Phytologist Vallejo-Marín and O'Brien1 documented that in the genus Solanum (Solanaceae) clonality and self-incompatibility, a common genetic mechanism enforcing cross-fertilization, co-occur more often than expected by chance. Using a phylogenetic approach the authors showed that the statistical association between clonality and self-incompatibility persists even after taking into account phylogenetic relationships among species, uncertainty in the phylogenetic reconstruction, and associations between clonality and life history (annual/perennial). Vallejo-Marín and O'Brien1 suggest that clonality and self-incompatibility tend to co-occur because clonality, by allowing the persistence and propagation of a genotype in environments with limited pollinator or mate availability, reduces the selective pressure favoring the breakdown of self-incompatibility. In addition to promoting the maintenance of self-incompatibility, when clonality results in the spatial aggregation of genetically identical individuals, clonality may promote its breakdown by restricting pollen transfer between different genotypes. Here I call attention to these contradictory predictions of the effects of clonality on the evolution of self-incompatibility, and suggest that the outcome of this paradox depend on both the extent to which clonal propagation compensates for limited seed production, and on the extent to which clonality reduces pollen transfer between genotypes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".