MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987072768 · doi:10.1139/x06-003

Population structure and parentage analysis of black poplar along the Morava River

2006· article· en· W1987072768 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Markéta Pospíšková, Ivana Šálková

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBiological dispersalGenetic diversityPopulationGene flowIntrogressionGenetic structurePollenSalicaceaeBotanySeed dispersalEcologyWoody plantGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve nuclear microsatellite markers were used to assess the population genetic structure of the riparian pioneer tree species Populus nigra L. along the Morava River in the Czech Republic. Parentage analysis of 30 seedlings was performed to examine the extent of hybridization between P. nigra and introduced hybrid poplars and to determine the distances of pollen and seed movement. Additionally, spatial genetic structure was analysed and gene dispersal was estimated indirectly. In spite of the limited size of our studied population (65 adult trees), the apparent overall genetic diversity was high (expected heterozygosity H e = 0.82) and comparable to the known diversity of P. nigra in southern Europe, where its glacial refugia were located. Introgression of Populus deltoides Bartr. ex Marsh. genes to P. nigra was confirmed, since 13% of tested seedlings descended from a Populus ×canadensis Moench female. The results of parentage analysis showed that a low percentage (20%) of offspring originated from parents located outside the study site. Dispersal distances for pollen and seeds movement ranged from 10 to 230 m and from 163 to 370 m, respectively. The study revealed significant spatial genetic structure (regression slope –0.0158), which was probably caused by limited gene flow.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207