MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408182505 · doi:10.1126/science.adq0018

Historic manioc genomes illuminate maintenance of diversity under long-lived clonal cultivation

2025· article· en· W4408182505 on OpenAlexaff
Logan Kistler, Fábio de Oliveira Freitas, Rafał M. Gutaker, S. Yoshi Maezumi, Jazmín Ramos‐Madrigal, Marcelo Fragomeni Simon, J. Moises Mendoza F., Sergei V. Drovetski, Hope Loiselle, Eder Jorge de Oliveira, Eduardo Alano Vieira, Luiz Joaquim Castelo Branco Carvalho, Marisol Corona Perez, Audrey T. Lin, Hsiao‐Lei Liu, Natalia A. S. Przelomska, Aakrosh Ratan, Nathan Wales, Kevin Wann, Magdalena García, Daniela Valenzuela, Francisco Rothhammer, Calógero M. Santoro, Alejandra I. Domic, José M. Capriles, Robin G. Allaby

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)GenomeBiologyEvolutionary biologyGeographyGeneticsSociologyGeneAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manioc-also called cassava and yuca-is among the world's most important crops, originating in South America in the early Holocene. Domestication for its starchy roots involved a near-total shift from sexual to clonal propagation, and almost all manioc worldwide is now grown from stem cuttings. In this work, we analyze 573 new and published genomes, focusing on traditional varieties from the Americas and wild relatives from herbaria, to reveal the effects of this shift to clonality. We observe kinship over large distances, maintenance of high genetic diversity, intergenerational heterozygosity enrichment, and genomic mosaics of identity-by-descent haploblocks that connect all manioc worldwide. Interviews with Indigenous traditional farmers in the Brazilian Cerrado illuminate how traditional management strategies for sustaining, diversifying, and sharing the gene pool have shaped manioc diversity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207