MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090080088 · doi:10.1139/b03-021

Microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity in four populations of<i>Populus tremuloides</i>in Quebec

2003· article· en· W2090080088 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Janet Wyman, Anne Bruneau, M. Francine Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteBiologyGenetic diversityGenetic variationPopulationAlleleGenotypeGeneticsGenetic variabilityGenetic distanceEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To determine overall genetic variability in aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) along the clay belt of northwestern Quebec, four populations were sampled at the transition zone between mixed-wood and conifer-dominated forests using a hierarchical strategy. Our objectives were (i) to estimate gene diversity among and within populations using microsatellite markers and (ii) to examine whether clonal structuring in aspen could be detected. For each population, three stands at least 1 km apart were sampled. Within each stand, five putative clones were sampled with a distance of 50 m between each clone. To examine potential genetic diversity within clones, for three of the putative clones sampled per stand, the three trees closest to this individual (potential ramets) were also sampled. All samples were analysed at four microsatellite loci. Measures of genetic variation all indicated that most of the variation occurred within rather than among the populations. R st , based on a stepwise mutation model, was 0.0409, slightly higher than F st , which was based on infinite allele model (0.0323). Within each stand, DNA fingerprint of five putative clones allowed the differentiation of genetically distinct individuals within these putative clones, and from 1.62 to 2.2 times more genetically distinct individuals were identified than by morphological identification. In the present study there was no correlation between the mean distance of the potential ramet to the central trunk (potential ramets were often within 2–3 m of the central trunk) and the possibility of the central trunk and ramet sharing the same genotype. The number of unique genotypes for the three putative clones sampled per stand varied from 11 genotypes per 15 samples to 14 per 15 samples. Consequently, it was not possible to identify clones by either distance from a given central trunk or morphological characteristics. Thus, after stand disturbance, suckers from different genotypes are likely to be closely mixed.Key words: genetic diversity, Populus tremuloides, microsatellites, clone size.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207