The enigma of the rise of angiosperms: can we untie the knot?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple hypotheses have been put forward to explain the rise of angiosperms to ecological dominance following the Cretaceous. A unified scheme incorporating all these theories appears to be an inextricable knot of relationships, processes and plant traits. Here, we revisit these hypotheses, categorising them within frameworks based on plant carbon economy, resistance to climatic stresses, nutrient economy, biotic interactions and diversification. We maintain that the enigma remains unresolved partly because our current state of knowledge is a result of the fragmentary nature of palaeodata. This lack of palaeodata limits our ability to draw firm conclusions. Nonetheless, based on consistent results, some inferences may be drawn. Our results indicate that a complex multidriver hypothesis may be more suitable than any single-driver theory. We contend that plant carbon economy and diversification may have played an important role during the early stages of gymnosperms replacement by angiosperms in fertile tropical sites. Plant tolerance to climatic stresses, plant nutrition, biotic interactions and diversification may have played a role in later stages of angiosperm expansion within temperate and harsh environments. The angiosperm knot remains partly tied, but to unravel it entirely will only be feasible if new discoveries are made by scientific communities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".