Factors limiting hybridization between<i>Penstemon spectabilis</i>and<i>Penstemon centranthifolius</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speciation involves the formation of reproductive isolating mechanisms such as a difference in pollinators, incompatibility between pollen tubes and stylar tissue, hybrid seed abortion, or poor growth of hybrid seedlings. We studied reproductive isolating mechanisms in naturally sympatric populations of Penstemon spectabilis Thurber and Penstemon centranthifolius (Benth.) Benth. where F1hybrids occurred at very low frequency. We compared conspecific crosses, backcrosses, and heterospecific crosses in terms of pollen grain germination, pollen tube growth, fruit set, seed set, and offspring performance. We found several postpollination barriers to hybridization. When P. spectabilis was the ovule parent, the lack of natural hybridization was partially explained by the presence of two isolating factors: reduced pollen tube growth and reduced seed set. When P. centranthifolius was the recipient, the barrier to hybridization was nearly 100% effective and occurred primarily at the stages of pollen grain germination and fruit set. The success of backcrossing was generally intermediate between conspecific and heterospecific crossing. For these two species, it is likely that partial pollinator specificity in addition to strong postpollination reproductive isolating mechanisms contribute to maintaining the species boundary.Key words: speciation, hybridization, introgression, Penstemon, reproductive isolating barriers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".