Morning glory species co-occurrence is associated with asymmetrically decreased and cascading reproductive isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hybridization between species can affect the strength of the reproductive barriers that separate those species. Two extensions of this effect are (1) the expectation that asymmetric hybridization or gene flow will have asymmetric effects on reproductive barrier strength and (2) the expectation that local hybridization will affect only local reproductive barrier strength and could therefore alter within-species compatibility. We tested these hypotheses in a pair of morning glory species that exhibit asymmetric gene flow from highly selfing Ipomoea lacunosa into mixed-mating Ipomoea cordatotriloba in regions where they co-occur. Because of the direction of this gene flow, we predicted that reproductive barrier strength would be more strongly affected in I. cordatotriloba than I. lacunosa. We also predicted that changes to reproductive barriers in sympatric I. cordatotriloba populations would affect compatibility with allopatric populations of that species. We tested these predictions by measuring the strength of a reproductive barrier to seed set across the species’ ranges. Consistent with our first prediction, we found that sympatric and allopatric I. lacunosa produce the same number of seeds in crosses with I. cordatotriloba, whereas crosses between sympatric I. cordatotriloba and I. lacunosa are more successful than crosses between allopatric I. cordatotriloba and I. lacunosa. This difference in compatibility appears to reflect an asymmetric decrease in the strength of the barrier to seed set in sympatric I. cordatotriloba, which could be caused by I. lacunosa alleles that have introgressed into I. cordatotriloba. We further demonstrated that changes to sympatric I. cordatotriloba have decreased its ability to produce seeds with allopatric populations of the same species, in line with our second prediction. Thus, in a manner analogous to cascade reinforcement, we suggest that introgression associated with hybridization not only influences between-species isolation but can also contribute to isolation within a species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".