Genetic consequences of fragmentation in “<i>arbor vitae,</i>” eastern white cedar (<i><scp>T</scp>huja occidentalis</i> L.), toward the northern limit of its distribution range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that marginal fragmented populations of eastern white cedar (EWC) are genetically isolated due to reduced pollen and gene flow. In accordance with the central-marginal model, we predicted a decrease in population genetic diversity and an increase in differentiation along the latitudinal gradient from the boreal mixed-wood to northern coniferous forest. A total of 24 eastern white cedar populations were sampled along the north-south latitudinal gradient for microsatellite genotyping analysis. Positive F(is) values and heterozygote deficiency were observed in populations from the marginal (F(is) = 0.244; P(HW) = 0.0042) and discontinuous zones (F(is) = 0.166; P(HW) = 0.0042). However, populations from the continuous zone were in HW equilibrium (F(is) = -0.007; P(HW) = 0.3625). There were no significant latitudinal effects on gene diversity (H(s)), allelic richness (AR), or population differentiation (F(st)). Bayesian and NJT (neighbor-joining tree) analyses demonstrated the presence of a population structure that was partly consistent with the geographic origins of the populations. The impact of population fragmentation on the genetic structure of EWC is to create a positive inbreeding coefficient, which was two to three times higher on average than that of a population from the continuous zone. This result indicated a higher occurrence of selfing within fragmented EWC populations coupled with a higher degree of gene exchange among near-neighbor relatives, thereby leading to significant inbreeding. Increased population isolation was apparently not correlated with a detectable effect on genetic diversity. Overall, the fragmented populations of EWC appear well-buffered against effects of inbreeding on genetic erosion.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".