A comparative epidermis study of the Athabasca sand dune willows (<i>Salix</i>; Salicaceae) and their putative progenitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Athabasca sand dunes are located on the south shore of Lake Athabasca in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada. Four willow shrubs (Salix; Salicaceae) occur on the open sands, two of which are endemic to the Athabasca sand dunes. Light and scanning electron microscopy were used to quantify stomatal frequency, stomatal index, trichome density, and cuticle thickness, for the Athabasca sand dune willows and their associated putative progenitors. The Athabasca sand dune taxa (Salix brachycarpa var. psammophila, Salix planifolia subsp. tyrrellii, Salix silicicola, and Salix turnorii) occur primarily on the inner dunes, and each has certain leaf epidermal features that appear to be adaptive to the exposed nature of the open sand habitat and the high light intensity. Salix brachycarpa var. psammophila and S. silicicola have tomentose leaves, with trichome densities that are significantly greater than those of their respective widespread progenitors. Salix planifolia subsp. tyrrellii and S. turnorii have amphistomatic leaves and substantially thicker cuticles than their associated progenitors. This investigation is the first to compare adaptive leaf epidermis features within the derivativeprogenitor Salix pairs. Considerations for the significance of amphistomaty in the Athabasca sand dune Salix taxa are discussed.Key words: Athabasca sand dunes, cuticle, Salix, stomata, trichomes, willow.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".