FITNESS DIFFERENCES AMONG DIPLOIDS, TETRAPLOIDS, AND THEIR TRIPLOID PROGENY IN CHAMERION ANGUSTIFOLIUM: MECHANISMS OF INVIABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLYPLOID EVOLUTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical models indicate that the evolution of tetraploids in diploid populations will depend on both the relative fitness of the tetraploid and that of the diploid-tetraploid hybrids. Hybrids are believed to have lower fitness due to imbalances in either the ploidy (endosperm imbalance) or the ratio of maternal to paternal genomes in their endosperm (genomic imprinting). In this study we created diploids, tetraploids, and hybrid triploids of Chamerion angustifolium from crosses between field-collected diploid and tetraploid plants and evaluated them at six life stages in a greenhouse comparison. Diploid offspring (from 2x x 2x crosses) had significantly higher seed production and lower biomass than tetraploid offspring (from 4x x 4x crosses). Relative to the diploid, the cumulative fitness of tetraploids was 0.67. In general, triploids (from 2x x 4x, 4x x 2x crosses) had significantly lower seed production, lower pollen viability, and higher biomass than diploid individuals. Triploid offspring derived from diploid maternal parents had lower germination rates, but higher pollen production than those with tetraploid mothers. Relative to diploids, the cumulative fitness of 2x x 4x triploids and 4x x 2x triploids was 0.12 and 0.06, respectively, providing some support for effect of differing maternal:paternal ratios and endosperm development as a mechanism of hybrid inviability. Collectively, the data show that tetraploids exhibit an inherent fitness disadvantage, although the partial viability and fertility of triploids may help to reduce the barrier to tetraploid establishment in sympatric populations.
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".