MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404157186 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.04.621881

The historical biogeography of range expansion predicts spatial patterns in reproductive assurance

2024· preprint· en· W4404157186 on OpenAlexaff
Mackenzie Urquhart‐Cronish, Ken Thompson, Amy L. Angert

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiogeographyRange (aeronautics)GeographyEconomic geographyBiologyEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plant reproductive assurance describes the ability of a plant to successfully reproduce in an environment that is potentially devoid of conspecifics and/or pollinators. Traditionally, studies have focused on the role of contemporary ecology—-such as pollinator or mate availability—-in driving spatial patterns in reproductive assurance within species, however, historical processes such as post-glacial range expansion may be an understudied alternative explanation for geographic variation in mating system. This is because during the process of geographic range expansion into novel habitat, selection should favour individuals that possess traits promoting reproductive assurance (i.e., autonomous selfing or clonal reproduction). Here, we used Northern pink monkeyflower— Erythranthe ( Mimulus lewisii —a hermaphroditic, self-compatible, perennial, alpine plant, as a focal species to investigate the historical signatures of geographic range expansion by combining phylogeographic analyses with a greenhouse survey of range-wide reproductive assurance. First, we detected significant geographic variation among populations in two components of reproductive assurance: self-fertilization and clonal propagation. Next, using genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data, we identified three distinct genetic clusters structured by longitude and estimated geographic coordinates of the most likely origins of range expansion within each cluster. We found that both measures of reproductive assurance significantly increased on average with distance from the inferred biogeographic origin, which is consistent with the hypothesis that reproductive assurance undergoes adaptive evolution during range expansion. This study supports hypotheses underlying Baker’s Law and contributes to our understanding of spatial variation in reproductive assurance, which is linked to variation in evolutionary potential, adaptability, and the long-term persistence of populations across large spatial scales. Lay summary What generates and maintains the amazing diversity in plant reproduction we see today? Traditionally, studies have focused on the role of contemporary ecology, such as pollinator or mate availability, in driving spatial patterns within species, however, historical drivers may be an understudied alternative explanation. Here, we test the hypothesis that expansion into new habitats after glacial retreat, where pollinators or mates were scarce, favors plants with the ability to reproduce in the absence of pollinators and mates by making self-pollinated seeds or vegetative clones of themselves. We find support for the hypothesis, where the probabilities of making both autonomously selfed seed and clonal vegetative propagules increase on average along inferred pathways of range expansion. Our study joins a handful of previous studies that tested and provided support for historical range expansion shaping range-wide spatial variation in reproductive assurance in plants, suggesting post-glacial range expansion may be a common mechanism creating diversity in plant mating systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→