Random amplified polymorphic DNA diversity of marginal and central populations in <i>Pinus contorta</i> subsp. <i>latifolia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fifteen populations of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta subsp. latifolia) were surveyed for diversity across 52 random amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPDs). The objective was to compare single-locus and multilocus structures in four marginal, three intermediate, and eight central populations. Single-locus estimates indicated average observed and expected heterozygosity to be 0.19 and 0.17, respectively. When these estimates were split into population categories, a clear trend of increasing diversity was detected in the direction of marginal to central populations. F-statistics indicated an excess of heterozygotes, with F(IS) ranging from -0.08 for marginal populations to -0.15 for central populations and averaging -0.12 over 15 populations. The estimates of F(ST) decreased towards the margins of the species range, indicating increased population differentiation. Forty-nine of 52 RAPDs tested neutral in the Ewens-Watterson analysis. Multilocus analysis showed significant two-locus and high-order gametic disequilibria in all 15 populations. The most prominent components of the two-locus analysis were the variance of disequilibrium (VD, 46.2%) and the multilocus Wahlund effect (31.9%). This high value for VD indicated that founder effects could explain much of the observed multilocus associations. When analyzed by population categories, the VD showed a decreasing trend indicating that variation due to founder effects was more prominent in marginal populations. The two-locus Wahlund effect (WC) that is characteristic of strong population subdivision was highest in the central populations. This indicated significant levels of gene flow between populations with different allelic combinations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".