A DNA barcode survey of Haida Gwaii kelp (Laminariales, Phaeophyceae) reveals novel ecological and distributional observations and<b><i>Saccharina druehlii</i></b>sp. nov.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A DNA barcode survey using mitochondrial COI-5P and nuclear internal transcribed spacer (ITS) markers of kelp from Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, has uncovered 18 genetic groups encompassing 17 morphospecies. The discrepancy derived from collections identified in the field as Saccharina sessilis (C.Agardh) Kuntze, which formed two distinct clusters in molecular (both mitochondrial COI-5P and nuclear ITS) analyses leading to the proposal of Saccharina druehlii sp. nov. The morphospecies listed in the literature for this region (∼25), but not found during our survey (8) were accounted for in previous molecular studies that have synonymized taxa, viz., from six to a single species of Alaria, or involve uncertain reports for two Laminaria spp. We did not collect Eisenia arborea Areschoug, which with its distinctive morphology would represent bona fide records for this region. This species was previously reported at only two locations in Haida Gwaii, suggesting that it is rare and restricted in distribution in this flora yielding a total of 19 species of Laminariales. In addition, novel distributional and ecological observations are discussed for the kelp in Haida Gwaii.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".