Correlated evolution of self‐incompatibility and clonal reproduction in<i>Solanum</i>(Solanaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that clonality provides reproductive assurance in cross-fertilizing species subject to pollen limitation, relieving one of the main selective pressures favoring the evolution of self-fertilization. According to this hypothesis, cross-fertilizing species subject to pollen limitation should often be clonal. Here, we investigated the association between clonality and a genetic mechanism enforcing outcrossing, self-incompatibility, in Solanum (Solanaceae). We collected self-incompatibility and clonality information on 87 species, and looked for an association between these two traits. To account for the contribution of shared evolutionary history to this association, we incorporated phylogenetic information from chloroplast (NADH dehydrogenase subunit F) sequence data. We found that self-incompatibility is strongly associated with clonal reproduction: all self-incompatible species reproduce clonally, while the absence of clonality is widespread among self-compatible taxa. The observed correlation persists after taking into account shared phylogenetic history, assumptions about the evolutionary history of self-incompatibility, uncertainty associated with phylogeny estimation, and associations with life history (annual/perennial). Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that clonality provides reproductive assurance, and suggest that the consequences of clonal growth in the evolution of plant reproductive strategies may be more significant than previously thought.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".