Genetic differentiation and admixture among<i>Festuca idahoensis</i>,<i>F. roemeri</i>, and<i>F. ovina</i>detected in AFLP, ITS, and chloroplast DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
North American forms of the Festuca ovina L. complex, Festuca idahoensis Elmer and Festuca roemeri (Pavlick) E.B. Alexeev, are distributed broadly east and narrowly west of the Cascade Mountains, respectively. The psbA-trnH and rps16-trnK chloroplast DNA intergenic sequences, 18S-5.8S-26S nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences, and six AFLP primer combinations were used to investigate genetic relatedness and differences among 327 plant samples from 24 F. idahoensis and 33 F. roemeri natural-source germplasm accessions, two multiple-origin F. idahoensis × F. roemeri cultivars, one apparently admixed F. ovina × F. idahoensis accession, four naturalized populations or cultivars of Eurasian-source F. ovina s. l., and several Festuca arizonica Vasey, Festuca occidentalis Hooker, and Festuca rubra L. reference accessions. The AFLP profiles of individual plants were unique, but distance-based and Bayesian model-based clustering separated AFLP genotypes into groups corresponding to taxa. Approximately 15.9% of the AFLP variation was apportioned between F. idahoensis and F. roemeri, with the remaining 61.2% and 22.9% variation maintained within and among natural-source accessions, respectively. Genetic admixture between F. idahoensis, F. roemeri, and F. ovina was detectable and DNA sequence divergence was very low in the chloroplast and ITS regions. These three taxa are genetically differentiated, but capable of hybridization.
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) | 0.000 | 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".