Evolutionary associations between polyploidy, clonal reproduction, and perenniality in the angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clonal reproduction is thought to facilitate polyploid establishment in the angiosperms, but the evolutionary relationship between polyploidy and clonality has not been thoroughly tested. A perennial life history may confer many of the same advantages, and the relative importance of clonality versus perenniality is unknown. We used phylogenetic comparative analyses of 1751 species to examine associations between polyploidy, clonality, and life history. We test hypotheses of co-evolution by determining the sequence of trait development. Polyploidy is associated with both clonality and perenniality across species, and analyses show that clonality can be an important predictor of polyploidy beyond perenniality. Tests of directionality on our full dataset suggest that polyploidy is more likely to promote clonality or perenniality than vice versa, although there are significant differences in patterns of co-evolution among major angiosperm groups. Our results suggest that polyploidy and clonal reproduction are evolutionarily associated across the angiosperms, even when perenniality is considered, but we find little evidence at the whole-angiosperm level for the hypothesis that clonality promotes polyploidy. However, variation among different clades indicates that polyploidy and clonality are interacting in diverse ways, likely to be due to the variable roles of clonality in their evolutionary histories.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".