Competitive ability, neopolyploid establishment and current distribution of a diploid–tetraploid plant complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy is a pervasive phenomenon in nature and has significantly contributed to the adaptive evolution of plants. The conditions necessary for the spread of neopolyploids in populations of the diploid progenitor are limited; however, the superior competitive ability of neopolyploids may promote its establishment. Here, we assess the contribution of polyploidisation to the divergence of plant traits affecting competitive response, which could explain the successful establishment and current geographic distribution of polyploids. We conducted an intraspecific competition experiment using diploids, neotetraploids and established tetraploids of Jasione maritima var. maritima to determine whether cytotypes differ in phenological, growth and physiological traits and competitive response. Cytotypes respond differently under different competition scenarios with implications for cytotype establishment and distribution. Competition impacted all cytotypes, but neotetraploids were least affected by competition, and the tetraploids were the most impacted. Thus, competitive advantage may have contributed to the displacement of diploid populations and colonisation of new areas by neotetraploids but might have been lost afterwards. Evolutionary changes after polyploidisation have also been detected, and tetraploids invested more in belowground biomass, suggesting that root development might also play a role in colonising southernmost locations. Interestingly, diploids and both tetraploids seem to have different life strategies, the first investing in growth while the latter investing in reserves for the next season. Overall, polyploidisation seems to provide immediate changes that confer an advantage under competition that, together with other factors, may have allowed the establishment of neotetraploids.
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".