Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plants exhibit diverse breeding systems, with populations capable of outcrossing, selfing, and/or asexual reproduction. However, interactions between the three reproductive pathways remain not fully clear. Sexual reproduction introduces segregation and recombination, but incurs several costs. Selfing can affect the relative costs and benefits of sexual vs. asexual reproduction. Building population genetic models, I explore how selfing affects the evolution of a sexual reproduction rate modifier via (a) indirect selection due to segregation, (b) indirect selection from changes in recombination rates, and (c) selection from the cost of meiosis and mate limitation. The dominant selective force mediating the evolution of sex is found to vary with the rate of sexual reproduction and selfing, but selective force (a) and (c) are generally stronger than selective force (b). A modifier enhancing sexual reproduction tends to be favored by indirect selection generated by partially recessive, small-effect deleterious mutations, while hindered by highly recessive lethal mutations. Overall, evolution toward higher sexual reproduction is hindered at low sexual reproduction rates and intermediate selfing rates, but favored under high selfing rates. The results suggest that asexual reproduction may precede the evolution of selfing and offer insights into the evolution of mechanisms reducing geitonogamy in partially clonal populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".