Contrasting microsatellite variation between subalpine and western larch, two closely related species with different distribution patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subalpine larch (Larix lyallii Parl.) and western larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.) represent two closely related species with contrasting abundance and distribution patterns in Western North America. Genetic diversity at seven informative microsatellite loci was determined for 19 populations of subalpine larch and nine populations of western larch. Contrasting genetic diversity and patterns of population differentiation were observed between the two species. The overall within-population genetic diversity parameters were lower in subalpine larch (A = 3.2; A(P) = 3.6; H(E) = 0.418) than in western larch (A(P) = 5.51; H(E) = 0.580), a pattern that is likely related to historical or demographic factors. No evidence of interspecific hybridization was observed. Significantly more population differentiation (theta = 0.15; R(ST) = 0.07), consistent with more restricted gene flow, was observed for subalpine larch as compared to western larch (theta = 0.05; R(ST) = 0.04). Under the assumption of an infinite allele mutation model, 12 of the 19 subalpine larch populations showed signs of deviation from the mutation-drift equilibrium, which suggests Holocene population bottlenecks and fluctuations in effective population size for this species. None of the western larch populations deviated significantly from the mutation-drift equilibrium. For both species, Mantel's test revealed a significant positive relationship between geographical and genetic distances indicative of isolation by distance. A similar geographical structure was detected in both species, suggesting at least two genetically distinct glacial populations in each species. The various implications for gene conservation are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".