MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Pseudocyphellaria crocata</i>, <i>P. neglecta</i> and <i>P. perpetua</i> from the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are a phylogenetic species and share cyanobionts

2006· article· en· W2037948370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tina C. Summerfield, Julian J. Eaton‐Rye

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyPhylogenetic treeInternal transcribed spacerGenetic diversityCladeLichenBotanySpecies complexZoologyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pseudocyphellaria crocata, P. neglecta and P. perpetua specimens were examined to investigate links between genetic variation and morphology, geographical distribution and cyanobiont specificity. Fungal internal transcribed spacer (ITS), beta-tubulin and cyanobacterial tRNA(Leu) (UAA) intron sequences were used to investigate symbiont diversity in these lichens. Specimens were morphologically distinct but could not be distinguished by ITS sequences. Phylogenetic analyses split the P. crocata specimens into two clades, the larger of which contained P. neglecta and P. perpetua. Five cyanobionts were identified; two of these were in a number of specimens, while three were each restricted to a single lichen thallus. Fungus-specific molecular markers indicated that all specimens belonged to a single phylogenetic species. However, this may contain a cryptic species. Geography was linked to genetic diversity with Canadian specimens forming a monophyletic group, and most Southern Hemisphere specimens grouping together, although Chile represented a hot spot of genetic diversity. There was no connection between fungal genetic diversity and cyanobiont choice, consistent with the presence of a common pool of cyanobionts.

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)0.000
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207