A comparison of genetic variation and structure in the allopolyploid<i>Platanthera huronensis</i>and its diploid progenitors,<i>Platanthera aquilonis</i>and<i>Platanthera dilatata</i>(Orchidaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers are used to compare population genetic structure among three widely distributed orchids: Platanthera huronensis (Nuttall) Lindl., an allopolyploid, and its diploid progenitors, Platanthera aquilonis Sheviak, and Platanthera dilatata (Pursh.) Lindl. ex Beck. Platanthera huronensis is very similar to P. dilatata in the level of genetic diversity at both the population and species levels. Populations of P. aquilonis are generally significantly less variable than populations of the other two species, but at the species level, P. aquilonis is more variable than P. dilatata or P. huronensis. Analyses of molecular variance indicated that most of the variation occurs within populations for P. dilatata (ΦST= 0.48, where ΦSTis the combined percentage of variation occurring among groups and among populations) and P. huronensis (ΦST= 0.36), and among populations for P. aquilonis (ΦST= 0.69). Populations in disparate regions are not strongly differentiated in P. aquilonis (7% among regions), while in P. dilatata 27% of the variation observed among populations is due to significant regional differences. Platanthera huronensis might be less genetically variable than expected of a widely distributed allopolyploid species due to a limited number of origins, genetic bottlenecks, and low levels of gene flow. Self-pollination via autogamy is a likely cause of the lower level of variation and greater structure observed in P. aquilonis.Key words: genetic structure, ISSR marker, Orchidaceae, Platanthera, allopolyploid.
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) | 0.001 | 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".