MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588591742 · doi:10.1111/evo.12065

ADAPTATION OF DIPLOID AND TETRAPLOID<i>CHAMERION ANGUSTIFOLIUM</i>TO ELEVATION BUT NOT LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

2013· article· en· W1588591742 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara L. Martin, Brian C. Husband

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersParks CanadaAlberta Parks
KeywordsBiologyPloidyPolyploidAdaptation (eye)Local adaptationPopulationEcologyHabitatBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polyploid organisms often have different geographic ranges than their diploid relatives. However, it is unclear whether this divergence is maintained by adaptation or results from historical differences in colonization. Here, we conducted a reciprocal transplant experiment with diploid and autotetraploid Chamerion angustifolium to test for adaptation at the ploidy and population level. In the Rocky Mountains, pure diploid populations occur at high elevations and pure autotetraploid populations occur at low elevations with mixed ploidy populations between. We planted 3134 seedlings in 2004 and 3890 juveniles (bolting) in 2005 among nine plots, three in each of the diploid, mixed ploidy, and tetraploid zones, and monitored survival until 2008. For both seedlings and juvenile plants, elevation significantly influenced survival. The juvenile plants also showed a significant ploidy by elevation interaction, indicating that diploids and tetraploids survived best at their native elevations. In contrast, we found no evidence of local adaptation to plot within elevation. This suggests that the current distribution of diploids and tetraploids across elevations is the result of adaptation and that genome duplication may have facilitated the invasion of lower elevation habitats by limiting the movement of maladapted alleles from diploid populations at higher elevations.

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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations70
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207