Low chloroplast diversity despite phylogenetically divergent haplotypes in Japanese populations of <i>Ailanthus altissima</i> (Simaroubaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle (Simaroubaceae) has succeeded in expanding its distribution widely over the past 100 years in Japan. We investigated which maternal lines of A. altissima are expanding in Japan and whether the introduced populations are different in various regions of Japan. Chloroplast DNA polymorphisms were analyzed on A. altissima trees (n = 449) sampled from 64 nonindigenous Japanese populations and four indigenous Chinese populations. Six haplotypes were identified. Three haplotypes (H1, H2, and H3) were observed in Japan, whereas four (H3, H4, H5, and H6) were detected in Chinese populations. Most A. altissima trees in Japan harbor either H1 or H3, and these two haplotypes were not genetically similar. Analysis of molecular variation showed some genetic differentiation among populations. In addition, significant isolation by distance was not detected. Twenty-two Japanese populations contained two haplotypes within each population, whereas the other 42 Japanese populations were composed of only one haplotype. These results indicate that Japanese populations of A. altissima may have derived from a limited number of seed introductions, but they were then widely spread in various regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".