MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920822891 · doi:10.1002/ece3.5001

Estimating the impact of divergent mating phenology between residents and migrants on the potential for gene flow

2019· article· en· W2920822891 on OpenAlexafffund
Colin Bonner, Nina A. Sokolov, Sally Erin Westover, Michelle Ho, Arthur E. Weis

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsGene flowPhenologyBiologyPollinationMatingPopulationReproductive isolationEcologyPollenEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationGeneticsGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gene flow between populations can allow the spread of beneficial alleles and genetic diversity between populations, with importance to conservation, invasion biology, and agriculture. Levels of gene flow between populations vary not only with distance, but also with divergence in reproductive phenology. Since phenology is often locally adapted, arriving migrants may be reproductively out of synch with residents, which can depress realized gene flow. In flowering plants, the potential impact of phenological divergence on hybridization between populations can be predicted from overlap in flowering schedules—the daily count of flowers capable of pollen exchange—between a resident and migrant population. The accuracy of this prospective hybridization estimate, based on parental phenotypes, rests upon the assumptions of unbiased pollen transfer between resident and migrant active flowers. We tested the impact of phenological divergence on resident–migrant mating frequencies in experiments that mimicked a single large gene flow event. We first prospectively estimated mating frequencies two lines of Brassica rapaselected or early and late flowering. We then estimated realized mating frequencies retrospectively through progeny testing. The two estimates strongly agreed in a greenhouse experiment, where procedures ensured saturating, unbiased pollination. Under natural pollination in the field, the rate of resident–migrant mating, was lower than estimated by phenological divergence alone, although prospective and retrospective estimates were correlated. In both experiments, differences between residents and migrants in flowering schedule shape led to asymmetric hybridization. Results suggest that a prospective estimate of hybridization based on mating schedules can be a useful, although imperfect, tool for evaluating potential gene flow. They also illustrate the impact of mating phenology on the magnitude and symmetry of reproductive isolation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207