Phenotypic and genotypic differentiation of<i>Vaccinium vitis-idaea</i>between coastal barrens and forests in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coastal barrens and forests are very different environments, making it surprising that some plant species grow in both habitats. Vaccinium vitis-idaea L., common in both habitats, was studied for phenotypic and genotypic differences that may correlate with the different environments. Of the measured phenotypic traits, leaf thickness demonstrated the best response to differences between habitat types. Amplified fragment length polymorphisms were used to assess the genetic diversity of 85 V. vitis-idaea plants between habitats. The overall genotypic diversity (D = 0.99) and evenness (E = 0.77) from this study were higher than that found in other studies on V. vitis-idaea, and were likely influenced by the sampling methods used. Although the harsh environment of the coastal barrens was expected to increase clonal reproduction, we found no evidence of extensive cloning in either habitat type. An AMOVA revealed that genetic variation was highest (87.8%) within populations, and that V. vitis-idaea was not genetically distinct between the coastal barrens and forests. This outcome is consistent with the hypothesis that coastal barrens and forest habitats along the Nova Scotia coast represent extremes of a successional continuum, rather than discrete plant communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".