Fine‐scale comparisons of genetic variability in seed families of asexually and sexually reproducing <i>Crataegus</i> (hawthorn; Rosaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproductive system is one of the key mechanisms that determine genetic diversity at different biological levels. However, few attempts have been made to assess the consequences of asexual reproduction by comparing genetic structure and fecundity of seed families in asexually and sexually reproducing individuals. We have examined two similar hawthorn species, Crataegus crus-galli and C. punctata, that differ in ploidy level and breeding system. Fecundity (per-fruit seed set) and microsatellite genotypes for five loci were determined in 18 and 26 seed families of C. crus-galli and C. punctata (totals of 83 and 118 embryos), respectively. Compared with the sexual diploid C. punctata, tetraploid C. crus-galli shows similar fecundity, but lower genotypic diversity within and between seed families. Reproduction in the tetraploid, while predominantly apomictic, is nevertheless accompanied by outcrossing and selfing. We conclude that in C. crus-galli pollen flow between conspecific individuals is limited, and the combination of pollen fertility, self-compatibility, and pseudogamous apomixis provides reproductive assurance in these tetraploids. Reproductive assurance, in turn, may explain the derived floral architecture seen in most North American tetraploid hawthorns. We also discuss analytical approaches for inferring mating-system parameters in tetraploids and for comparing microsatellite variation across ploidy levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".