A taxonomic nightmare comes true: phylogeny and biogeography of glassworts ( <i>Salicornia</i> L., Chenopodiaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study we analysed ETS sequence data of 164 accessions belonging to 31 taxa of Salicornia , a wide‐spread, hygrohalophytic genus of succulent, annual herbs of Chenopodiaceae subfam. Salicornioideae, to investigate phylogenetic and biogeographical patterns and hypothesise about the processes that shaped them Furthermore, our aim was to understand the reasons for the notorious taxonomic difficulties in Salicornia. Salicornia probably originated during the Miocene somewhere between the Mediterranean and Central Asia from within the perennial Sarcocornia and started to diversify during Late Pliocene/Early Pleistocene. The climatic deterioration and landscape‐evolution caused by orogenetic processes probably favoured the evolution and initial diversification of this annual, strongly inbreeding lineage from the perennial Sarcocornia that shows only very limited frost tolerance. The further diversification of Salicornia was promoted by at least five intercontinental dispersal events (2× to South Africa, at least 3× to North America) and at least two independent polyploidization events resulting in rapidly expanding tetraploid lineages, both of which are able to grow in lower belts of the saltmarshes than their diploid relatives. The diploid lineages of Salicornia also show rapid and effective range expansion resulting in both widespread genotypes and multiple genotypes in a given area. Reproductive isolation through geographical isolation after dispersal, inbreeding, and comparatively young age might be responsible for the large number of only weakly differentiated lineages. The sequence data show that the taxonomic confusion in Salicornia has two major reasons: (1) in the absence of a global revision and the presence of high phenotypic plasticity, the same widespread genotypes having been given different names in different regions, and (2) striking morphological parallelism and weak morphological differentiation led to the misapplication of the same name to different genotypes in one region.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".