Divergence among arctic and alpine populations of the annual, <i>Koenigia islandica</i> : morphology, life‐history, and phenology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic and alpine habitats occur along complex environmental gradients, and over an extensive geographical range. Despite some selective forces common to these habitats, evolutionary divergence among populations of arctic and alpine plants along this gradient is expected. Of particular significance, both in the context of life‐history theory and for implications of climate change, are the few annual species that have adapted to the constraints of an unpredictable, short growing season. In this study, morphological, life‐history and phenological characters were found to differ significantly among six widely distributed populations of the arctic‐alpine annual Koenigia islandica. On the basis of morphology and life‐history traits, populations from high latitudes, with the exception of Svalbard, performed better in simulated arctic conditions, whereas the low latitude alpine plants from Colorado showed enhanced performance under simulated alpine conditions. On the basis of phenology, the six populations can be clearly grouped into arctic, high latitude alpine and alpine populations: arctic plants were found to develop and flower earliest; alpine plants latest. Because these results were obtained using seeds harvested from plants first grown through a complete generation in growth chambers, they indicate strong genetic differentiation. We discuss possible adaptive explanations for observed differences among the six geographically divergent populations.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".