Data from: Co-occurrence of related asexual, but not sexual, lineages suggests that reproductive interference limits coexistence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractWe used randomizations to analyse patterns of co-occurrence of sexual and apomictic (asexual) members of the North American Crepis agamic complex (Asteraceae). We expect strong asymmetry in reproductive interactions in Crepis: apomicts produce clonal seeds with no need for pollination and are not subject to reproductive interference from co-occurring relatives. However, because they still produce some viable pollen, apomicts can reduce reproductive success of nearby sexual relatives, potentially leading to eventual local exclusion of sexuals. Consistent with this, randomizations reveal that sexuals are over-represented in isolated sites, while apomicts freely co-occur. Incorporation of taxonomic and phylogenetic evidence indicates that this pattern is not driven by local origins of asexuals. Our evidence that patterns of local co-occurrence are structured by reproductive interference suggests an underappreciated role for these interactions in community assembly, and highlights the need for explicit tests of the relative contributions of ecological and reproductive interactions in generating patterns of limiting similarity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.016 |
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".