MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918228458 · doi:10.1111/nph.15768

Evolutionary history of the buildup and breakdown of the heterostylous syndrome in Plumbaginaceae

2019· article· en· W2918228458 on OpenAlexaff
Joana Costa, Rubén Torices, Spencer C. H. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySelfingEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary pathways leading to the heterostylous syndrome are not well understood, and models concerning the origins of distyly differ in the order in which reciprocal herkogamy and self-incompatibility evolve. We investigated the evolution and breakdown of distyly in Plumbaginaceae, a family with considerable diversity of floral traits and reproductive systems. Using Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo analyses and stochastic character mapping, we examined the evolutionary assembly and breakdown of the heterostylous syndrome based on a well-resolved phylogeny of 121 species of Plumbaginaceae and six outgroup taxa using five nuclear and plastid gene regions. We used the distribution of reproductive traits and reconstructed ancestral characters across phylogenies to evaluate competing models for the evolution of distyly. The most likely common ancestor of Plumbaginaceae was self-incompatible and monomorphic for sex-organ arrangement and pollen-stigma characters. Character state reconstructions indicated that reciprocal herkogamy evolved at least three times and that shifts to selfing and apomixis occurred on multiple occasions. Our results provide comparative support for the early ideas of H. G. Baker on evolutionary pathways in Plumbaginaceae, and the more recent selfing avoidance model by D. & B. Charlesworth in which distyly evolves from self-incompatible ancestors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.155 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207