Bidirectional introgression between<i>Pinus taeda</i>and<i>Pinus echinata</i>: evidence from morphological and molecular data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency of mature hybrids, including post-F 1 individuals, between loblolly (Pinus taeda L.) and shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.), detectable with a codominant nuclear marker, was studied in a sympatric population from central Arkansas. The direction of introgression was also examined. The marker revealed 10 putative hybrids from the 80 trees sampled. PCR-RFLP analysis of their rbcL gene showed two of the putative hybrids (HL) share loblolly pine chloroplast DNA, and eight (HS) share the shortleaf pine chloroplast DNA. The two putative HL hybrids were morphologically similar to loblolly pine, and the eight putative HS hybrids were morphologically similar to shortleaf pine. Utilizing microsatellite data, Nei's measure of genetic identity showed the putative HL hybrids to be similar to loblolly pine, and the putative HS hybrids as being similar to shortleaf pine. An inferred tree of the individuals, using simple sequence repeat data and the neighbor-joining method, also suggested that some of the putative hybrids were not F 1 individuals. Principle component analysis of the morphological characters groups the HL trees with loblolly pine and the HS trees with shortleaf pine. These results suggest bidirectional introgression occurred within the study population, and some of the putative hybrids were likely derived from early-generation backcross(es) with either shortleaf or loblolly pine.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".