MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169717917 · doi:10.3732/ajb.90.12.1801

New evidence from mitochondrial DNA of a progenitor‐derivative species relationship between black spruce and red spruce (Pinaceae)

2003· article· en· W2169717917 on OpenAlexafffund
Juan Pablo Jaramillo‐Correa, Jean Bousquet

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAllopatric speciationBiologyMitochondrial DNABlack spruceGenetic diversityPinaceaeBotanyPopulationEcologyTaigaGeneticsGenePinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers were used to assess the genetic diversity in allopatric populations of black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP) and red spruce (P. rubens Sarg.). Patterns of mitochondrial haplotypes (mitotypes) were strikingly different between the two species. All mtDNA markers surveyed were polymorphic in black spruce, revealing four different mitotypes and high levels of mtDNA diversity (P(p) = 100%, A = 2.0, H = 0.496). In contrast, populations of red spruce had only two mitotypes and harbored low levels of ggenetic diversity (P(p) = 13.2%, A = 1.1, H = 0.120). When the southernmost allopatric populations of red spruce were considered, only one mitotype was detected. As previously reported for nuclear gene loci, the diversity observed for mtDNA in red spruce was a subset of that found in black spruce. Comparison of present and previously published data supports the hypothesis of a recent progenitor-derivative relationship between these species, red spruce presumably being derived by allopatric speciation of an isolated population of black spruce during the Pleistocene.

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)0.001
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 score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207