Patterns of genomic diversification reflect differences in life history and reproductive biology between figs (<i>Ficus</i>) and the stone oaks (<i>Lithocarpus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the remarkable aspects of the tremendous biodiversity found in tropical forests is the wide range of evolutionary strategies that have produced this diversity, indicating many paths to diversification. We compare two diverse groups of trees with profoundly different biologies to discover whether these differences are reflected in their genomes. Ficus (Moraceae), with its complex co-evolutionary relationship with obligate pollinating wasps, produces copious tiny seeds that are widely dispersed. Lithocarpus (Fagaceae), with generalized insect pollination, produces large seeds that are poorly dispersed. We hypothesize that these different reproductive biologies and life history strategies should have a profound impact on the basic properties of genomic divergence within each genus. Using shallow whole genome sequencing for six species of Ficus, seven species of Lithocarpus, and three outgroups, we examined overall genomic diversity, how it is shared among the species within each genus, and the fraction of this shared diversity that agrees with the major phylogenetic pattern. A substantially larger fraction of the genome is shared among species of Lithocarpus, a considerable amount of this shared diversity was incongruent with the general background history of the genomes, and each fig species possessed a substantially larger fraction of unique diversity than Lithocarpus.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".