The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Large Genome Constraint Hypothesis: Evolution, Ecology and Phenotype
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: If large genomes are truly saturated with unnecessary 'junk' DNA, it would seem natural that there would be costs associated ith accumulation and replication of this excess DNA. Here we examine the available evidence to support this hypothesis, which we term the 'large genome constraint'. We examine the large genome constraint at three scales: evolution, ecology, and the plant phenotype. SCOPE: In evolution, we tested the hypothesis that plant lineages with large genomes are diversifying more slowly. We found that genera with large genomes are less likely to be highly specious -- suggesting a large genome constraint on speciation. In ecology, we found that species with large genomes are under-represented in extreme environments -- again suggesting a large genome constraint for the distribution and abundance of species. Ultimately, if these ecological and evolutionary constraints are real, the genome size effect must be expressed in the phenotype and confer selective disadvantages. Therefore, in phenotype, we review data on the physiological correlates of genome size, and present new analyses involving maximum photosynthetic rate and specific leaf area. Most notably, we found that species with large genomes have reduced maximum photosynthetic rates - again suggesting a large genome constraint on plant performance. Finally, we discuss whether these phenotypic correlations may help explain why species with large genomes are trimmed from the evolutionary tree and have restricted ecological distributions. CONCLUSION: Our review tentatively supports the large genome constraint hypothesis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
THE ANGIOSPERM PHYLOGENY GROUP* (2003) · Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1046/j.1095-8339.2003.t01-1-00158.x · Cited by 2,991
From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., & Ellsworth, D. S. (1997) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.94.25.13730 · Cited by 2,423
Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite
Orgel, L. E., & Crick, F. H. C. (1980) · Nature · doi:10.1038/284604a0 · Cited by 2,156
A gentle introduction to quantile regression for ecologists
Cade, B. S., & Noon, B. R. (2003) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0412:agitqr]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,855
Richards, A. J. (1997) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-3043-9 · Cited by 1,847
Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution
Doolittle, W. F., & Sapienza, C. (1980) · Nature · doi:10.1038/284601a0 · Cited by 1,829
THE EVOLUTION OF SELF‐FERTILIZATION AND INBREEDING DEPRESSION IN PLANTS. I. GENETIC MODELS
Lande, R., & Schemske, D. W. (1985) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb04077.x · Cited by 1,648
Genome evolution in polyploids
Wendel, J. F. (2000) · Plant Molecular Biology · doi:10.1023/a:1006392424384 · Cited by 1,600
Stomatal Size in Fossil Plants: Evidence for Polyploidy in Majority of Angiosperms
Masterson, J. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.264.5157.421 · Cited by 1,176
The evolutionary ecology of seed size.
Leishman, M. R., Wright, I. J., Moles, A. T., & Westoby, M. (2000) · Seeds: the ecology of regeneration in plant communities · doi:10.1079/9780851994321.0031 · Cited by 1,014
Cited by
The Arabidopsis lyrata genome sequence and the basis of rapid genome size change
Hu, T. T., Pattyn, P., Bakker, E. G., Cao, J., Cheng, J.-F., Clark, R. M., Fahlgren, N., Fawcett, J. A., Grimwood, J., Gundlach, H., et al. (2011) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.807 · Cited by 872
What we still don't know about invasion genetics
Bock, D. G., Caseys, C., Cousens, R. D., Hahn, M. A., Heredia, S. M., Hübner, S., Turner, K. G., Whitney, K. D., & Rieseberg, L. H. (2015) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.13032 · Cited by 441
The largest eukaryotic genome of them all?
PELLICER, J., FAY, M. F., & LEITCH, I. J. (2010) · Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2010.01072.x · Cited by 379
Polyploidy, the Nucleotype, and Novelty: The Impact of Genome Doubling on the Biology of the Cell
Doyle, J. J., & Coate, J. E. (2019) · International Journal of Plant Sciences · doi:10.1086/700636 · Cited by 365
Evolutionary constraints on yeast protein size
Warringer (2006) · BMC Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1186/1471-2148-6-61 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- KNIGHT, C. A.
- Venue
- Annals of Botany
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-01
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-190
- ISSN
- 0305-7364 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-8290
- OpenAlex
- W2166162616
- Cited by
- 538
- References
- 68
- FWCI
- 22.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Large Genome Constraint Hypothesis: Evolution, Ecology and Phenotype. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/aob/mci011
- The paper
- KNIGHT, C. A. (2005). The Large Genome Constraint Hypothesis: Evolution, Ecology and Phenotype. Annals of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci011
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.