The origins of reproductive isolation in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Reproductive isolation in plants occurs through multiple barriers that restrict gene flow between populations, but their origins remain uncertain. Work in the past decade has shown that postpollination barriers, such as the failure to form hybrid seeds or sterility of hybrid offspring, are often less strong than prepollination barriers. Evidence implicates multiple evolutionary forces in the origins of reproductive barriers, including mutation, stochastic processes and natural selection. Although adaptation to different environments is a common element of reproductive isolation, genomic conflicts also play a role, including female meiotic drive. The genetic basis of some reproductive barriers, particularly flower colour influencing pollinator behaviour, is well understood in some species, but the genetic changes underlying many other barriers, especially pollen–stylar interactions, are largely unknown. Postpollination barriers appear to accumulate at a faster rate in annuals compared with perennials, due in part to chromosomal rearrangements. Chromosomal changes can be important isolating barriers in themselves but may also reduce the recombination of genes contributing to isolation. Important questions for the next decade include identifying the evolutionary forces responsible for chromosomal rearrangements, determining how often prezygotic barriers arise due to selection against hybrids, and establishing the relative importance of genomic conflicts in speciation. Contents Summary 968 I. Introduction 968 II. Reproductive barriers in plants 970 III. Geographic patterns and the origin of reproductive isolation 971 IV. Genetic changes and evolutionary drivers behind reproductive isolation 973 V. The timing of reproductive barriers 979 VI. Synthesis and future directions 980 Acknowledgements 981 References 981
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".