Phylogenetic analysis of North American<i>Elymus</i>and the monogenomic Triticeae (Poaceae) using three chloroplast DNA data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the monogenomic genera of the Triticeae have been analyzed in numerous biosystematic studies, the allopolyploid genera have not been as extensively studied within a phylogenetic framework. We focus on North American species of Elymus, which, under the current genomic system of classification, are almost all allotetraploid, combining the St genome of Pseudoroegneria with the H genome of Hordeum. We analyze new and previously published chloroplast DNA data from Elymus and from most of the monogenomic genera of the Triticeae in an attempt to identify the maternal genome donor of Elymus. We also present a cpDNA phylogeny for the monogenomic genera that includes more data than, and thus builds on, those previously published. The chloroplast DNA data indicate that Pseudoroegneria is the maternal genome donor to all but one of the Elymus individuals. There is little divergence among the Elymus and Pseudoroegneria chloroplast genomes, and as a group, they show little divergence from the rest of the Triticeae. Within the monogenomic Triticeae, the problematic group Thinopyrum is resolved as monophyletic on the chloroplast DNA tree. At the intergeneric level, the data reveal several deeper-level relationships that were not resolved by previous cpDNA trees.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".