Phylogenetic evidence for cladogenetic polyploidization in land plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Polyploidization is a common and recurring phenomenon in plants and is often thought to be a mechanism of "instant speciation". Whether polyploidization is associated with the formation of new species (cladogenesis) or simply occurs over time within a lineage (anagenesis), however, has never been assessed systematically. METHODS: We tested this hypothesis using phylogenetic and karyotypic information from 235 plant genera (mostly angiosperms). We first constructed a large database of combined sequence and chromosome number data sets using an automated procedure. We then applied likelihood models (ClaSSE) that estimate the degree of synchronization between polyploidization and speciation events in maximum likelihood and Bayesian frameworks. KEY RESULTS: Our maximum likelihood analysis indicated that 35 genera supported a model that includes cladogenetic transitions over a model with only anagenetic transitions, whereas three genera supported a model that incorporates anagenetic transitions over one with only cladogenetic transitions. Furthermore, the Bayesian analysis supported a preponderance of cladogenetic change in four genera but did not support a preponderance of anagenetic change in any genus. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these phylogenetic analyses provide the first broad confirmation that polyploidization is temporally associated with speciation events, suggesting that it is indeed a major speciation mechanism in plants, at least in some genera.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".