The association between polyploidy and clonal reproduction in diploid and tetraploid<i>Chamerion angustifolium</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal reproduction is associated with the incidence of polyploidy in flowering plants. This pattern may arise through selection for increased clonality in polyploids compared to diploids to reduce mixed-ploidy mating. Here, we test whether clonal reproduction is greater in tetraploid than diploid populations of the mixed-ploidy plant, Chamerion angustifolium, through an analysis of the size and spatial distribution of clones in natural populations using AFLP genotyping and a comparison of root bud production in a greenhouse study. Natural tetraploid populations (N = 5) had significantly more AFLP genotypes (x¯ = 10.8) than diploid populations (x¯ = 6.0). Tetraploid populations tended to have fewer ramets per genotype and fewer genotypes with >1 ramet. In a spatial autocorrelation analysis, ramets within genotypes were more spatially aggregated in diploid populations than in tetraploid populations. In the greenhouse, tetraploids allocated 90.4% more dry mass to root buds than diploids, but tetraploids produced no more root buds and 44% fewer root buds per unit root mass than diploids. Our results indicate that clonal reproduction is significant in most populations, but tetraploid populations are not more clonal than diploids, nor are their clones more spatially aggregated. As a result, tetraploids may be less sheltered from mixed-ploidy mating and diploids more exposed to inbreeding, the balance of which could influence the establishment of tetraploids in diploid 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".