Preliminary Insights into the Phylogeography of Six Aquatic Hyphomycete Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic hyphomycetes occur worldwide on a wide range of plant substrates decomposing in freshwaters, and are known to play a key role in organic matter turnover. The presumed worldwide distribution of many aquatic hyphomycete species has been based on morphology-based taxonomy and identification, which may overlook cryptic species, and mask global-scale biogeographical patterns. This might be circumvented by using DNA sequence data. The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region from rDNA was recently designated as the most suitable barcode for fungal identification. In this study, we generated ITS barcodes of 130 isolates belonging to 6 aquatic hyphomycete species (Anguillospora filiformis, Flagellospora penicillioides, Geniculospora grandis, Lunulospora curvula, Tetrachaetum elegans and Tricladium chaetocladium), and collected from streams of Southwest Europe (86 isolates) and East Australia (44 isolates). European and Australian populations of 4 species (A. filiformis, F. penicillioides, G. grandis and T. elegans) grouped into different clades, and molecular diversity indices supported significant differentiation. Continents did not share haplotypes, except for T. chaetocladium. Overall results show substantial population diversity for all tested species and suggests that the biogeography of aquatic hyphomycetes may be species-specific.
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 | 0.000 | 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".