The role of intraspecific crop–weed hybridization in the evolution of weediness and invasiveness: Cultivated and weedy radish (<i>Raphanus sativus</i>) as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: The phenotype of hybrids between a crop and its wild or weed counterpart is usually intermediate and maladapted compared to that of their parents; however, hybridization has sometimes been associated with increased fitness, potentially leading to enhanced weediness and invasiveness. Since the ecological context and maternal genetic effects may affect hybrid fitness, they could influence the evolutionary outcomes of hybridization. Here, we evaluated the performance of first-generation crop-weed hybrids of Raphanus sativus and their parents in two contrasting ecological conditions. METHODS: Using experimental hybridization and outdoor common garden experiments, we assessed differences in time to flowering, survival to maturity, plant biomass, and reproductive components between bidirectional crop-weed hybrids and their parents in agrestal (wheat cultivation, fertilization, weeding) and ruderal (human-disturbed, uncultivated area) conditions over 2 years. RESULTS: Crop, weeds, and bidirectional hybrids overlapped at least partially during the flowering period, indicating a high probability of gene flow. Hybrids survived to maturity at rates at least as successful as their parents and had higher plant biomass and fecundity, which resulted in higher fitness compared to their parents in both environments, without any differences associated with the direction of the hybridization. CONCLUSIONS: Intraspecific crop-weed hybridization, regardless of the cross direction, has the potential to promote weediness in weedy R. sativus in agrestal and ruderal environments, increasing the chances for introgression of crop alleles into weed populations. This is the first report of intraspecific crop-weed hybridization in R. sativus.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".