A RECONCILIATION ANALYSIS OF HOST SWITCHING IN PLANT-FUNGAL SYMBIOSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant-fungal symbioses include many familiar antagonistic and mutualistic associations and some model cases of coevolution. The relationship between coevolution at the different evolutionary scales has remained an open question. Widespread host specificity and documented host switches offer conflicting indications of what to expect from comparisons of plant and fungal phylogenies. This study sought to establish the role of plant phylogeny in determining fungal phylogeny and the relative contributions of codivergence and host switching by comparing tree topologies for 15 plant-fungal symbioses. Second it attempted to characterize the relationship between phylogenetic congruence and switching. Trees were estimated from published sequences and reconciliation analysis was applied in the form of cophylogeny mapping using “jungles”. This provided an exhaustive account of all possible switches capable of reconciling two associated phylogenies. A continuum of cophylogenetic dynamics was identified, ranging from mostly codivergence (e.g., Exobasidium) to mostly switching, (e.g., Erysiphe). Surprisingly, congruent solutions do not necessarily have fewer switches when using cophylogeny mapping, but a significant negative relationship between congruence and the distance of switches proved to be a useful indicator. According to reconciliation analysis, the contribution of host phylogeny varies widely across plant-fungal symbioses, making host specificity and coadaptation poor indicators of macroevolutionary trends because they are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".