Plastid genomes reveal evolutionary shifts in elevational range and flowering time of <i>Osmanthus</i> (Oleaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Species of Osmanthus are economically important ornamental trees, yet information regarding their plastid genomes (plastomes) have rarely been reported, thus hindering taxonomic and evolutionary studies of this small but enigmatic genus. Here, we performed comparative genomics and evolutionary analyses on plastomes of 16 of the 28 currently accepted species, with 11 plastomes newly sequenced. Phylogenetic studies identified four main lineages within the genus that are here designated the: “Caucasian Osmanthus ” (corresponding to O . decorus ), “ Siphosmanthus ” (corresponding to O . sect. Siphosmanthus ), “ O . serrulatus + O. yunnanensis ,” and “Core Osmanthus : (corresponding to O . sect. Osmanthus + O . sect. Linocieroides ). Molecular clock analysis suggested that Osmanthus split from its sister clade c. 15.83 Ma. The estimated crown ages of the lineages were the following: genus Osmanthus at 12.66 Ma; “ Siphosmanthus ” clade at 5.85 Ma; “ O . serrulatus + O. yunnanensis ” at 4.89 Ma; and “Core Osmanthus : clade at 6.2 Ma. Ancestral state reconstructions and trait mapping showed that ancestors of Osmanthus were spring flowering and originated at lower elevations. Phylogenetic principal component analysis clearly distinguished spring‐flowering species from autumn‐flowering species, suggesting that flowering time differentiation is related to the difference in ecological niches. Nucleotide substitution rates of 80 common genes showed slow evolutionary pace and low nucleotide variations, all genes being subjected to purifying selection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".