Selection for pollen competitive ability in mixed-mating systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coexpression of genes in plant sporophytes and gametophytes allows correlated gametic and sporophytic selection. Theory predicts that, under outcrossing, an allele conferring greater pollen competitive ability should fix within a population unless antagonistic pleiotropy with the sporophyte stage is strong. However, under strong selfing, pollen competitiveness is immaterial as superior and inferior competitors are deposited on opposite stigmas, producing assortative competition. Because many plant species have mixed-mating systems, selfing should be critical in the spread and maintenance of pollen-expressed genes affecting competitiveness. We present two one-locus, two-allele population genetic models for the evolution of a locus controlling pleiotropic antagonism between pollen competitiveness and diploid fitness. Analytical solutions provide minimum and maximum selfing rates allowing invasion of alleles with greater diploid and haploid fitness, respectively. Further, polymorphism is only maintained when diploid selection is recessive. Fixation of the allele conferring greater pollen competitiveness may be prevented, even with weak sporophytic counterselection, with sufficiently high selfing. Finally, selfing expands and limits the range of haploid-diploid selection coefficients allowing polymorphism, depending on dominance and selfing mode.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".