MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111037581 · doi:10.3732/ajb.2007385

Hybridization between the escaped <i>Rosa rugosa</i> (Rosaceae) and native <i>R</i>. <i>blanda</i> in eastern North America

2008· article· en· W2111037581 on OpenAlexafffund
Marjorie Mercure, Anne Bruneau

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionHybridSympatryDeserts and xeric shrublandsBotanySympatric speciationGeneticsEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rosa rugosa, a vigorous ornamental shrub introduced from Asia in the 19th century, is now naturalized in coastal northeastern North America, where it occasionally grows in sympatry with the native R. blanda. To document hybridization between these species, evaluate its extent across the area of sympatry, and examine the use of morphology as a field monitoring tool, we sampled 179 individuals of parental species and putative hybrids in 13 pure and 11 mixed populations. We developed allele-specific primers to assay single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) markers from one chloroplast region and four low-copy nuclear introns. Our results revealed frequent bidirectional hybridization and infrequent introgression in sympatric populations of these species. The recurrent presence of F(1) hybrids in mixed populations indicated the weakness of early-acting reproductive barriers. Morphological data were concordant with molecular data and provided additional evidence for the presence of a few backcrosses. Morphological analyses yielded diagnostic characters for identifying hybrids and monitoring the hybrid zone. Such hybridization could ultimately lead to the genetic assimilation of R. blanda in mixed populations and to the formation of invasive hybrid genotypes, a phenomenon that is of economic and ecological concern because of the increasing number of exotic species worldwide.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207