MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mechanisms of Fungal Speciation

2005· review· en· W2135808558 on OpenAlexaff
Linda M. Kohn

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Phytopathology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenetic algorithmAllopatric speciationIncipient speciationEvolutionary biologyEcological speciationReproductive isolationBiological dispersalAdaptation (eye)EcologyGenetic variationGeneticsPopulationGene flowGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review is to provide a synthesis of speciation theory, of what is known about mechanisms of speciation in fungi and from this, what is expected, and of ideas on how speciation can be elucidated in more fungal systems. The emphasis is on process rather than pattern. Phylogeographic studies in some groups, such as the agarics, demonstrate predominantly allopatric speciation, often through vicariance, as seen in many plants and animals. The variety of life history factors in fungi suggests, however, a diversity in speciation mechanisms that is borne out in comparison of some key examples. Life history features in fungi with a bearing on speciation include genetic mechanisms for intra- and interspecies interactions, haploidy as monokaryons, dikaryons, or coenocytes, distinctive types of propagules with distinctive modes of dispersal, as well as characteristic relationships to the substrate or host as specialized or generalist saprotrophs, parasites or mutualists with associated opportunities and selective pressures for hybridization. Approaches are proposed for both retrospective, phylogeographic determination of speciation mechanisms, and experimental studies with the potential for genomic applications, particularly in examining the relationship between adaptation and reproductive isolation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of PhytopathologySame topicMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant InteractionsFrench-language works237,207