Photobiont Relationships and Phylogenetic History of Dermatocarpon luridum var. luridum and Related Dermatocarpon Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Members of the genus Dermatocarpon are widespread throughout the Northern Hemisphere along the edge of lakes, rivers and streams, and are subject to abiotic conditions reflecting both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Little is known about the evolutionary relationships within the genus and between continents. Investigation of the photobiont(s) associated with sub-aquatic and terrestrial Dermatocarpon species may reveal habitat requirements of the photobiont and the ability for fungal species to share the same photobiont species under different habitat conditions. The focus of our study was to determine the relationship between Canadian and Austrian Dermatocarpon luridum var. luridum along with three additional sub-aquatic Dermatocarpon species, and to determine the species of photobionts that associate with D. luridum var. luridum. Culture experiments were performed to identify the photobionts. In addition, the question of the algal sharing potential regarding different species of Dermatocarpon was addressed. Specimens were collected from four lakes in northwestern Manitoba, Canada and three streams in Austria. Three Canadian and four Austrian thalli of D. luridum var. luridum were selected for algal culturing. The nuclear Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) rDNA gene of the fungal partner along with the algal ITS rDNA gene was sequenced to confirm the identity of the lichen/photobiont and afterwards the same data sets were used in phylogenetic analyses to assess algal sharing. The green algal photobiont was identified as Diplosphaera chodatii (Trebouxiophyceae). The phylogenetic analyses of Canadian and Austrian D. luridum var. luridum revealed that ITS sequences are identical despite the vast geographic distance. Phylogenetic placement of D. luridum var. decipiens and D. arnoldianum suggested that a re-examination of the species status might be necessary. This study concluded that additional photobiont culture experiments should be conducted to answer the question of whether multiple photobionts are present within the genus Dermatocarpon.
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) | 0.001 | 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".