Plant phylogeny as a window on the evolution of hyperdiversity in the tropical rainforest biome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contents Summary 1408 I. Introduction 1408 II. A brief history of hypotheses 1410 III. Age of TRF biome and lineages 1411 IV. Frequency of immigration from other biomes 1413 V. Speciation and extinction 1414 VI. Ecological limits 1415 VII. Key methodological challenges 1416 VIII. Perspectives 1417 IX. Conclusions 1419 Acknowledgements 1419 References 1419 Summary Tropical rainforest ( TRF ) is the most species‐rich terrestrial biome on Earth, harbouring just under half of the world's plant species in c . 7% of the land surface. Phylogenetic trees provide important insights into mechanisms underpinning TRF hyperdiversity that are complementary to those obtained from the fossil record. Phylogenetic studies of TRF plant diversity have mainly focused on whether this biome is an evolutionary ‘cradle’ or ‘museum’, emphasizing speciation and extinction rates. However, other explanations, such as biome age, immigration and ecological limits, must also be considered. We present a conceptual framework for addressing the drivers of TRF diversity, and review plant studies that have tested them with phylogenetic data. Although surprisingly few in number, these studies point to old age of TRF , low extinction and high speciation rates as credible drivers of TRF hyperdiversity. There is less evidence for immigration and ecological limits, but these cannot be dismissed owing to the limited number of studies. Rapid methodological developments in DNA sequencing, macroevolutionary analysis and the integration of phylogenetics with other disciplines may improve our grasp of TRF hyperdiversity in the future. However, such advances are critically dependent on fundamental systematic research, yielding numerous, additional, well‐sampled phylogenies of TRF lineages.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".