Postglacial colonization and population genetic relationships in the<i>Pinus contorta</i>complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the evolutionary relationships among the subspecies of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud.) and the possible existence of a northern glacial refugium for Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. subsp. latifolia Engelm. and a coastal refugium for Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. subsp. contorta , 31 populations were analyzed using RAPD markers to determine whether a pattern of isolation by distance exists. A total of 52 markers from 10 primers were scored. A significant pattern of isolation by distance was detected when all 31 populations were analyzed together and for the 19 populations of subsp. latifolia. A phylogenetic tree constructed from all 31 populations does not show an unambiguous division of the subspecies of P. contorta into distinct clades. Our results provide no support for the separation of lodgepole pine into various subspecies and show that the subspecies of lodgepole pine have not been sufficiently isolated from one another for a large amount of genetic divergence to occur between them. For subsp. latifolia, the pattern of isolation by distance is consistent with the hypothesis of a single refugium south of the glacial maximum with population expansion following glacial retreat. The amount of genetic distance and the pattern of differentiation in populations of subsp. contorta suggest a more complex history associated with fluctuation in ocean levels and glacial margins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".