Genotype‐by‐environment interactions leads to variable selection on life‐history strategy in Common Evening Primrose (<i>Oenothera biennis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monocarpic plant species, where reproduction is fatal, frequently exhibit variation in the length of their prereproductive period prior to flowering. If this life-history variation in flowering strategy has a genetic basis, genotype-by-environment interactions (G x E) may maintain phenotypic diversity in flowering strategy. The native monocarpic plant Common Evening Primrose (Oenothera biennis L., Onagraceae) exhibits phenotypic variation for annual vs. biennial flowering strategies. I tested whether there was a genetic basis to variation in flowering strategy in O. biennis, and whether environmental variation causes G x E that imposes variable selection on flowering strategy. In a field experiment, I randomized more than 900 plants from 14 clonal families (genotypes) into five distinct habitats that represented a natural productivity gradient. G x E strongly affected the lifetime fruit production of O. biennis, with the rank-order in relative fitness of genotypes changing substantially between habitats. I detected genetic variation in annual vs. biennial strategies in most habitats, as well as a G x E effect on flowering strategy. This variation in flowering strategy was correlated with genetic variation in relative fitness, and phenotypic and genotypic selection analyses revealed that environmental variation resulted in variable directional selection on annual vs. biennial strategies. Specifically, a biennial strategy was favoured in moderately productive environments, whereas an annual strategy was favoured in low-productivity environments. These results highlight the importance of variable selection for the maintenance of genetic variation in the life-history strategy of a monocarpic plant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".