Clonal diversity within and among introduced populations of the apomictic vine <i>Bryonia alba</i> (Cucurbitaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bryonia alba L. (Cucurbitaceae) is a herbaceous Eurasian vine that predominantly reproduces clonally (asexually) through apomixis. We assessed the magnitude and distribution of clonal diversity within and among 23 recently established populations of B. alba in its new range in the western United States, based on the distribution of multilocus isozyme genotypes. Fifty-two unique clones were detected: 30 in the nine populations from eastern Washington and northern Idaho, and the remaining 22 in 14 populations from western Montana, northern Utah, and southern Idaho. On average, each population of B. alba was composed of 6.4 clones, and the proportion of distinguishable clones was 0.275. Multilocus diversity (D) was 0.632 and multilocus evenness (E) was 0.556. Twenty-six of 52 clones (50%) were restricted to a single population, and, on average, each clone occurred in 2.83 populations. Compared with other clonally reproducing plant species, this vine possesses moderate to high levels of clonal diversity in its new range in the western United States. This diversity appears to be a consequence of the events associated with its introduction (including multiple introductions), founder effects, and the proportion of sexual to apomictic reproduction within populations.Key words: invasive vine, apomixis, multilocus genotypes, clonal diversity and evenness, Bryonia alba, Cucurbitaceae.
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) | 0.000 | 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".