Morphological variation in <i>Sarracenia purpurea</i> (Sarraceniaceae): geographic, environmental, and taxonomic correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographic variation in morphology reflects phenotypic responses to environmental gradients and evolutionary history of populations and species and may indicate local or regional changes in environmental conditions. The pitcher plant (Sarracenia purpurea) illustrates these principles. At local scales, its morphology reflects nutrient availability. At points along its broad geographic range (from Florida to northern Canada) morphology has been used to distinguish subspecies and varieties, but there has been no detailed study of the continuum of morphological variation across this entire range. Patterns of morphological variation in S. purpurea were characterized as a function of climatic and environmental conditions at 39 sites spanning its range. Differences in pitcher size and shape were strongly correlated with temperature, annual precipitation, and availability of ammonium and calcium in peat pore water. Pitcher shape (lip width, mouth diameter, and pitcher width) in Florida panhandle populations differed significantly from pitcher shape of all other populations, even after accounting for environmental correlations. In contrast, the northern and southern subspecies of S. purpurea (the latter exclusive of the Florida panhandle populations) cannot be distinguished based on these morphological measurements alone. These results support a recent proposal that identifies the Florida populations as a distinct species, Sarracenia rosea.
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".