AN EVALUATION OF METHODS USED TO ASSESS INTERGENERIC HYBRIDIZATION IN KELP USING PACIFIC LAMINARIALES (PHAEOPHYCEAE)<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kelp intergeneric laminarialean hybridizations and hybridization protocol were assessed using seven northeast Pacific kelp species:Alaria marginataPostels and Ruprecht,Costaria costata(C. A. Agardh) Saunders,Eisenia arboreaAreschoug,Laminaria saccharina(L) Lamouroux,Lessoniopsis littoralis(Tilden) Reinke,Macrocystis integrifoliaBory, andNereocystis leutkeana(Mertens) Postels and Ruprecht. Survival and development of sporophyte morphologies derived from selfings, separate males and females, and reciprocal crosses were evaluated over 30 weeks of cultivation. All cultures were initiated from cloned gametophytes. Two closely related species,Laminaria angustataKjellman andL. japonicaAreschoug, demonstrated the efficacy of long‐term (up to 30 years) cloned gametophytes in hybridization studies. Sporophyte morphologies appeared in 34%–69% of control and hybridization trials, and 6%–16% of all trials produced sporophytes in control and hybridization conditions that persisted through 30 weeks of cultivation. Sporophytes in control and hybridization conditions could appear normal or abnormal. Usually, the morphology of sporophytes in hybridizations and female controls resembled the female parent, whereas the sporophytes in male controls often had an abbreviated morphology, lacking definitive generic features. Species‐specific rDNA internal transcribed spacer molecular primers were used to determine the parentage of five putative hybrids. Only theL. japonica♀/L. angustata♂ hybrid bore both parental genomes. That negative controls could produce persistent and normal‐appearing sporophytes negates their value and emphasizes the importance of molecular confirmation in hybridization studies. These findings were applied to critique the only known wild intergeneric hybrid,Pelagophycus/Macrocystis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".