Population Structure and Genetic Diversity of<i>Clintonia udensis</i>Trautv. et Mey. (Liliaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic diversity of 17 populations of Clintonia udensis Trautv. et Mey. was studied by using 15 intersimple sequence repeat primers. The results revealed a relatively high genetic diversity, with percentage of polymorphic $$\mathrm{bands}\,=98.8\% $$, Shannon’s information $$\mathrm{index}\,=0.56$$, and Nei’s gene diversity $$\mathrm{index}\,=0.38$$. The genetic diversity at the population level was considerably low, while a high level of genetic differentiation among populations was detected. This was confirmed by analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA). No significant statistical difference was found between geographic regions. Tetraploid populations showed an approximately equal level of genetic diversity compared with that of the diploid populations. No significant differentiation occurred between cytotypes. Shannon diversity index, Nei’s gene diversity index, and AMOVA analysis all showed that there was more genetic variation among diploid/tetraploid populations than within diploid/tetraploid populations. The Mantel test revealed no significant correlation between genetic distance and geographic distance at the species level. The biological characteristics of this species, the unique Clintonia‐type megasporogenesis and genetic drift, might account for the existence of relatively high interpopulation genetic variation. Cluster analysis gathered the 17 populations into two groups. Group I contained all diploids and made up geographic region I. This might be the center of origin of C. udensis. Group II had two coexisting cytotypes and made up geographic region IIa, IIb‐1, and IIb‐2, which might represent the secondary diversity centers of C. udensis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".