Genome size variation in the <i>Artemisia arborescens</i> complex (Asteraceae, Anthemideae) and its cultivars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different wild Mediterranean populations of Artemisia arborescens from diverse locations representing its geographical distribution, as well as some of its well-known cultivars and some specimens cultivated as ornamentals in gardens, streets, roads and nurseries, were analysed for genome size. Other closely related species endemic to Macaronesia, Artemisia canariensis, Artemisia argentea, and Artemisia gorgonum, were also analysed, and their nuclear DNA amount has been related to the biogeography of this group of species. Additionally, 5 populations of the closely related Artemisia absinthium were analysed to establish comparisons. Measurements acquired by flow cytometry ranged from 8.29 to 11.61 pg for 2C values. Statistically significant differences of 2C nuclear DNA amounts with respect to factors such as insularity or domestication have been detected. However, quite a low intraspecific genome size variation has been found in these species. Furthermore, the study also addressed the possible hybrid origins and possible misidentifications of some of the supposed cultivars of A. arborescens.Key words: Artemisia arborescens, Artemisia absinthium, Artemisia argentea, Artemisia canariensis, Artemisia gorgonum, C value, Compositae, cultivar, domestication, flow cytometry, genome size, hybridization, interspecific variation, intraspecific variation, speciation.
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".