Population differentiation of the lodgepole pine (<i>Pinus contorta</i>) and jack pine (<i>Pinus banksiana</i>) complex in Alberta: growth, survival, and responses to climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Growth and survival of 33 populations from a species complex involving interior lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) and jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) and their natural hybrids in Alberta were evaluated at ages 5, 10, and 15 years in eight test sites across Alberta. We determined population differentiations by estimating Mahalanobis distances between populations from the canonical discriminant analysis of the total variability and by calculating dissimilarity indexes between populations from the quadratic regression of overall growth and survival on the overall climate. The grouping of the populations based on the Mahalanobis distances showed that most jack pine populations could be separated from lodgepole and hybrid populations, but no further subdivision was possible to distinguish lodgepole from hybrid populations. This clustering pattern was remarkably similar to the grouping based on molecular markers as shown in our earlier study. This pattern of grouping is best explained by a clear elevational demarcation between jack pine at low elevations and lodgepole pine and hybrids at midrange and high elevations. The grouping of the populations based on the dissimilarity indexes revealed a somewhat contrasting pattern; most lodgepole pine populations were in one group, whereas jack pine and hybrid populations were mixed up in the other group. The two contrasting patterns of grouping suggest that nonclimatic factors such as edaphic preference and habitat disturbances are also important in determining population distributions and niche spaces in the lodgepole – jack pine complex.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".