Complex cytogeographical patterns reveal a dynamic tetraploid–octoploid contact zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of cytotypes in mixed-ploidy species is crucial for evaluating ecological processes involved in the establishment and evolution of polyploid taxa. Here, we use flow cytometry and chromosome counts to explore cytotype diversity and distributions within a tetraploid-octoploid contact zone. We then use niche modelling and ploidy seed screening to assess the roles of niche differentiation among cytotypes and reproductive interactions, respectively, in promoting cytotype coexistence. Two cytotypes, tetraploids and octoploids, were dominant within the contact zone. They were most often distributed parapatrically or allopatrically, resulting in high geographic isolation. Still, 16.7 % of localities comprised two or more cytotypes, including the intermediate hexaploid cytotype. Tetraploids and octoploids had high environmental niche overlap and associated with similar climatic environments, suggesting they have similar ecological requirements. Given the geographical separation and habitat similarity among cytotypes, mixed-ploidy populations may be transitional and subject to the forces of minority cytotype exclusion which lead to pure-ploidy populations. However, seed ploidy analysis suggests that strong reproductive barriers may enforce assortative mating which favours stable cytotype coexistence. High cytogenetic diversity detected in the field suggests that unreduced gamete formation and hybridization events seem frequent in the studied polyploid complex and might be involved with the recurrent polyploid formation, governing, as well, the gene flow between cytogenetic entities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".