Genetic variation and reproductive mode in two epiphytic lichens of conservation concern: a transatlantic study of<i>Evernia divaricata</i>and<i>Usnea longissima</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North European epiphytic lichens are often genetically impoverished compared with their North American counterparts. This has been hypothesized to impede sexual reproduction due to reduced chances of finding compatible mating type partners. We compared genetic variation and reproductive mode in two threatened Scandinavian lichens, Evernia divaricata and Usnea longissima, with more viable populations in North America to see (i) if these species also show genetical depletion in northern Europe and (ii) if the occurrence of sexual propagules (ascospores in apothecia) is more prevalent in genetically diverse populations. Genetic variation of the fungal component was assessed by sequencing two nuclear rDNA gene regions (ITS and IGS) in 1005 and 1477 thalli, collected from 92 and 160 localities of E. divaricata and U. longissima, respectively. Scandinavian populations of both species were almost devoid of genetic variation compared with much higher genetic diversity in North America. We found no support for the proposed relationship between genetic diversity and fertility. Fertile thalli were found in several genetically invariable populations. Fertility increased with population size and regional abundance in E. divaricata, but not in U. longissima. In Scandinavia, E. divaricata was more fertile than previously recorded, whereas all sampled populations of U. longissima were sterile and possibly clonal.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".