Ecological mechanisms of reproductive isolation between diploid and tetraploid <i>Chamerion angustifolium</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1 Theoretical models indicate that coexistence of diploid and polyploid individuals in sympatric populations is unlikely when mating is random among cytotypes and hybrids are inviable. However, coexistence may be facilitated by prezygotic isolating mechanisms that reduce intercytotype mating and increase assortative mating. 2 We examined the ecological factors regulating intercytotype mating in Chamerion (formerly Epilobium) angustifolium by measuring floral morphology, flowering synchrony and insect foraging preferences in a mixed population within a diploid–tetraploid contact zone. We also calculated the minimum rate of between‐cytotype mating from estimates of the frequency of triploid offspring. 3 Diploids had significantly shorter and narrower petals as well as shorter styles than tetraploids. Inflorescences were significantly taller in tetraploids than diploids, but the mean number of open flowers per inflorescence did not differ. Diploid and tetraploid flowering periods overlapped by 51%, with diploid stems flowering earlier. 4 In a plot of 20 diploid and 28 tetraploid stems that were flowering simultaneously, only 26% of all bee flights were between flowers on different stems. Of the total flights between inflorescences, only 15% were between different cytotypes. The combined effects of flowering asynchrony and insect foraging reduced the opportunities for intercytotype mating from 49% expected if mating is random to about 2% of the total number of pollinator flights. 5 A computer simulation indicated that the deficiency of pollinator flights between cytotypes was due largely to the spatial structure of cytotypes and limited pollinator flight distances within the observation plot. The frequency of triploid offspring produced during the period when both cytotypes were in flower was 6.6%, similar to the proportion of flights observed between flowers on different cytotypes (4%). 6 The results indicate that flowering phenology and insect behaviour (as influenced by clonal structure) have a significant effect on prezygotic mating isolation and triploid production, and may contribute to the maintenance of mixed cytotype populations in Chamerion angustifolium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".