The population genomics of plant adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary There has been an enormous increase in the amount of data on DNA sequence polymorphism available for many organisms in the last decade. New sequencing technologies provide great potential for investigating natural selection in plants using population genomic approaches. However, plant populations frequently show significant departures from the assumptions of standard models used to detect selection and many forms of directional selection do not fit with classical population genetics theory. Here, we explore the extent to which plant populations show departures from standard model assumptions, and the implications this has for detecting selection on molecular variation. A growing number of multilocus studies of nucleotide variation suggest that changes in population size, particularly bottlenecks, and strong subdivision may be common in plants. This demographic variation presents important challenges for models used to infer selection. In addition, selection from standing genetic variation and multiple independent adaptive substitutions can further complicate efforts to understand the nature of selection. We discuss emerging patterns from plant studies and propose that, rather than treating population history as a nuisance variable when testing for selection, the interaction between demography and selection is of fundamental importance for evolutionary studies of plant populations using molecular data. Contents Summary 313 I. Introduction 314 II. Methods to detect selection at the molecular level 314 III. Population size changes 317 IV. Population subdivision 321 V. Local adaptation, standing genetic variation, quantitative traits and multiple adaptive substitutions 324 VI. Demographic context of selection and future directions 326 Acknowledgements 328 References 328
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".