Global biodiversity data suggest allopolyploid plants do not occupy larger ranges or harsher conditions compared with their progenitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the factors determining species' geographical and environmental range is a central question in evolution and ecology, and key for developing conservation and management practices. Shortly after the discovery of polyploidy, just over 100 years ago, it was suggested that polyploids generally have greater range sizes and occur in more extreme conditions than their diploid congeners. This suggestion is now widely accepted in the literature and is attributed to polyploids having an increased capacity for genetic diversity that increases their potential for adaptation and invasiveness. However, the data supporting this idea are mixed. Here, we compare the niche of allopolyploid plants to their progenitor species to determine whether allopolyploidization is associated with increased geographic range or extreme environmental tolerance. Our analysis includes 123 allopolyploid species that exist as only one known ploidy level, with at least one known progenitor species, and at least 50 records in the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) database. We used GBIF occurrence data and range modeling tools to quantify the geographic and environmental distribution of these allopolyploids relative to their progenitors. We find no indication that allopolyploid plants occupy more extreme conditions or larger geographic ranges than their progenitors. Data evaluated here generally indicate no significant difference in range between allopolyploids and progenitors, and where significant differences do occur, the progenitors are more likely to exist in extreme conditions. We concluded that the evidence from these data indicate allopolyploidization does not result in larger or more extreme ranges. Thus, allopolyploidization does not have a consistent effect on species distribution, and we conclude it is more likely the content of an allopolyploid's genome rather than polyploidy per se that determines the potential for invasiveness.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".