MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Populations do not become less genetically diverse or more differentiated towards the northern limit of the geographical range in clonal <i>Vaccinium stamineum</i> (Ericaceae)

2008· article· en· W2157692942 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah B. Yakimowski, Christopher G. Eckert

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Phytologist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyRange (aeronautics)Threatened speciesPopulationGenetic diversityEricaceaeAsexual reproductionSexual reproductionSmall population sizePopulation sizeEvolutionary biologyVacciniumEcologyDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geographically peripheral populations are expected to exhibit lower genetic diversity and higher differentiation than central populations because of their smaller size and greater spatial isolation. In plants, a shift from sexual to clonal asexual reproduction may further reduce diversity and increase differentiation. Here, these predictions were tested by assaying 36 inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) polymorphisms in 21 populations of the woody, clonal plant Vaccinium stamineum in eastern North America, from the range center to its northern limit where it has 'threatened' status. Populations decline in frequency, but not size or sexual reproductive output, across the range. Within-population diversity did not decline towards range margins. Modest genetic differentiation among populations increased slightly towards range margins and in small populations with high clonal propagation and low seed production, although none of these trends was significant. Low seed production and high clonal propagation were not associated with large-scale clonal spread. By combining demographic and genetic data, this study determined that increased population isolation, rather than reduced population size, can account for the weak increase in genetic differentiation at range margins.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew PhytologistSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207