MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120873011 · doi:10.1086/599241

A Continent‐Wide Clone: Population Genetic Variation of the Invasive Plant<i>Hieracium aurantiacum</i>(Orange Hawkweed; Asteraceae) in North America

2009· article· en· W2120873011 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eli S. Loomis, Lila Fishman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight Center
KeywordsBiologyGenetic diversityRange (aeronautics)BotanyPopulationAsteraceae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the population genetic structure of the invasive plant Hieracium aurantiacum (Asteraceae), a facultative apomict. We generated amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprints for H. aurantiacum samples from across its invasive range in North America ($$N=226$$) and from six other North American native and invasive Hieracium species ($$N=60$$). Almost no genetic variability was found in the North American H. aurantiacum across locations from Alaska and Oregon to Pennsylvania and Ontario ($$\mathrm{clonal}\,\,\mathrm{diversity}\,=0.035$$). In contrast, other Hieracium species showed a range of clonal diversities ($$\mathrm{range}\,=0.154{\mbox{--}} 1.0$$). The single H. aurantiacum genotype that dominated the North American invaded range was identical to a sample from the native range (Czech Republic), where low genetic diversity has also been reported. However, we did find evidence of hybridization between H. aurantiacum and at least one other nonnative Hieracium species in North America, indicating that the generation of novel hybrid genetic combinations may be an important factor in this invasive group of Hieracium taxa. Our findings suggest that sexual recombination and genetic diversity are not essential for successful plant invasion and that phenotypic plasticity alone may provide the flexibility necessary for the establishment of H. aurantiacum in diverse habitats.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations43
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207