Genetic Diversity among Natural and Cultivated Field Populations and Seed Lots of American Ginseng (<i>Panax quinquefolius</i>L.) in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic diversity within Canadian‐grown North American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) was evaluated using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Fifteen primers that produced 35 highly repeatable polymorphic markers were used to screen over 600 plant samples from various Canadian ginseng farms and seed lots. Ten samples from a Wisconsin seed lot and 58 samples from three natural ginseng populations in Quebec were also included for comparison. Genetic distance values, estimated as the complement to the simple matching coefficient, within cultivated populations ranged from 0.21 for a population in Nova Scotia to 0.34 for a British Columbia population, with an overall mean of 0.3. Distance values within three natural populations were either similar (0.33) or lower (0.12, 0.19) when compared with cultivated populations, indicating that populations under cultivation have not undergone a reduction in overall genetic diversity. However, one RAPD marker was polymorphic only in natural populations. Monotonic multidimensional scaling and χ2 analyses indicated that natural populations were genetically distinct from cultivated ones. Individual plants originating as seeds from the same mother plant had much lower genetic diversity (mean of 0.18) compared with individual field‐grown plants chosen at random from the same farm. Segregation of some RAPD markers was observed among the progeny, indicating that parental plants have some degree of heterozygosity and that a level of outcrossing may be present. Estimates of the component for genetic diversity between populations (G′ST) were 18.0% and 28.0% for cultivated and natural populations, respectively; much of the variation was detected within and not between populations. These results imply that North American ginseng is a heterogeneous mix of genetic material and that the observed genetic diversity in cultivated populations in Canada results largely from the mixing of different seed lots. In addition, heterozygosity within the parent plants and cross‐pollination appear also to contribute to genetic variation in this species.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".