Polyploidy and possible implications for the evolutionary history of some Australian Danthonieae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidy is a widespread feature of some plants that allows for rapid speciation and occurs widely in Poaceae. However, there have been few studies of Australian native grasses reporting the distribution patterns of cytotypes and examining the potential role of different cytotypes in adaptation. We determined chromosome number for 48, 113, 8, 43 and 33 plants of Austrodanthonia bipartita (Link) H.P.Linder, A. caespitosa (Gaudich.) H.P.Linder, A. eriantha (Lindl.) H.P.Linder, A. fulva (Vickery) H.P.Linder and A. setacea (R.Br.) H.P.Linder, respectively, representing 28 wild populations collected in central western New South Wales. A widespread distribution is reported for tetraploids (2n = 48), whereas diploids (2n = 24) and a limited number of hexaploids (2n = 72) appear to be associated with northern and western populations. In all populations, coexistent cytotypes were found, although tetraploids were the most widespread cytotype for the most commonly occurring species, A. caespitosa. The occurrence of low frequencies of putative intermediate cytotypes, particularly triploids, in all five species provides evidence for inter-specific hybridisation and/or intra-specific crossing between cytotypes. The lack of common ecological factors (climate, edaphic or micro-site) that clearly distinguish diploid from tetraploid A. caespitosa plants provides further evidence for hybridisation between cytological races of 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".