Rethinking pathways to the dioecy–polyploidy association: Genera with many dioecious species have fewer polyploids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PREMISE: Numerous studies have found a positive association between dioecy and polyploidy; however, this association presents a theoretical conflict: While polyploids are predicted to benefit from self-reproduction for successful establishment, dioecious species cannot self-reproduce. We propose a theoretical framework to resolve this apparent conflict. We hypothesize that the inability of dioecious species to self-reproduce hinders their establishment as polyploids. We therefore expect that genera with many dioecious species have fewer polyploids, leading to a negative association between polyploidy and dioecy across genera. METHODS: We used three publicly available databases to determine ploidy and sexual systems for 131 genera and 546 species. We quantified (1) the relationship between the frequency of polyploid species and the frequency of dioecious species across genera, and (2) the proportion of polyploids with hermaphroditism and dioecy across species, adjusting for phylogenetic history. RESULTS: Across genera, we found a negative relationship between the proportion of polyploids and the proportion of dioecious species, a consistent trend across clades. Across all species, we found that sexual system (dioecious or not) was not associated with polyploidy. CONCLUSIONS: Polyploids are rare in genera in which the majority of species are dioecious, consistent with the theory that self-reproduction favors polyploid establishment. The low frequency of polyploidy among dioecious species indicates the association is not as widespread as previously suggested. Our findings are consistent with previous studies identifying a positive relationship between the two traits, but only if polyploidy promotes a transition to dioecy, and not the reverse.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".