Attack of the clones: reproductive interference between sexuals and asexuals in the<i>Crepis</i>agamic complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Negative reproductive interactions are likely to be strongest between close relatives and may be important in limiting local coexistence. In plants, interspecific pollen flow is common between co‐occurring close relatives and may serve as the key mechanism of reproductive interference. Agamic complexes, systems in which some populations reproduce through asexual seeds (apomixis), while others reproduce sexually, provide an opportunity to examine effects of reproductive interference in limiting coexistence. Apomictic populations experience little or no reproductive interference, because apomictic ovules cannot receive pollen from nearby sexuals. Oppositely, apomicts produce some viable pollen and can exert reproductive interference on sexuals by siring hybrids. In the Crepis agamic complex, sexuals co‐occur less often with other members of the complex, but apomicts appear to freely co‐occur with one another. We identified a mixed population and conducted a crossing experiment between sexual diploid C. atribarba and apomictic polyploid C. barbigera using pollen from sexual diploids and apomictic polyploids. Seed set was high for all treatments, and as predicted, diploid–diploid crosses produced all diploid offspring. Diploid–polyploid crosses, however, produced mainly polyploidy offspring, suggesting that non‐diploid hybrids can be formed when the two taxa meet. Furthermore, a small proportion of seeds produced in open‐pollinated flowers was also polyploid, indicating that polyploid hybrids are produced under natural conditions. Our results provide evidence for asymmetric reproductive interference, with pollen from polyploid apomicts contributing to reduce the recruitment of sexual diploids in subsequent generations. Existing models suggest that these mixed sexual–asexual populations are likely to be transient, eventually leading to eradication of sexual individuals from the population.
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".