Data from: Plant–insect interactions: double-dating associated insect and plant lineages reveals asynchronous radiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of plant-insect studies using phylogenetic analysis suggest that cospeciation events are rare in plant–insect systems. Instead, nonrandom patterns of phylogenetic congruence are produced by phylogenetically conserved host switching (to related plants) or tracking of particular resources or traits (e.g., chemical). The dominance of host switching in many phytophagous insect groups may make the detection of genuine cospeciation events difficult. One important test of putative cospeciation events is to verify whether reciprocal speciation is temporally plausible. We explored techniques for double-dating of both plant and insect phylogenies. We use dated molecular phylogenies of a psyllid (Hemiptera)–Genisteae (Fabaceae) system, a predominantly monophagous insect–plant association widespread on the Atlantic Macaronesian islands. Phylogenetic reconciliation analysis suggests high levels of parallel cladogenesis between legumes and psyllids. However, dating using molecular clocks calibrated on known geological ages of the Macaronesian islands revealed that the legume and psyllid radiations were not contemporaneous but sequential. Whereas the main plant radiation occurred some 8 million years ago, the insect radiation occurred about 3 million years ago. We estimated that >60% of the psyllid speciation has resulted from host switching between related hosts. The only evidence for true cospeciation is in the much more recent and localized radiation of genistoid legumes in the Canary Islands, where the psyllid and legume radiations have been partially contemporaneous. The identification of specific cospeciation events over this time period, however, is hindered by the phylogenetic uncertainty in both legume and psyllid phylogenies due to the apparent rapidity of the species radiations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".