Symbiosis with rhizobia limits range expansion only in polyploid legumes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Both mutualism and polyploidy are thought to influence invasion success in plants but few studies have tested their joint effects. Mutualism can limit range expansion when plants cannot find a compatible partner in a novel habitat, or facilitate range expansion when mutualism increases a plant’s niche breadth. Polyploids are also expected to have greater niche breadth because of greater self-compatibility and phenotypic plasticity, increasing invasion success. For 839 legume species, we compiled data from published sources to estimate ploidy, symbiotic status with rhizobia, specificity on rhizobia, and the number of introduced ranges. We found that diploid species have had limited spread around the globe regardless of whether they are symbiotic or how many partners of rhizobia they can host. Polyploids, in contrast, have been successfully introduced to many new ranges, but interactions with rhizobia constrain their range expansion. In a hidden state model of trait evolution, we also found evidence of a high rate of re-diploidization in symbiotic legume lineages, suggesting that symbiosis and ploidy may interact at macroevolutionary scales. Overall, our results suggest that symbiosis with rhizobia affects range expansion only in polyploid legumes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".