Populations of Antarctic Hairgrass (Deschampsia antarctica) Show Low Genetic Diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of the only two flowering plants native to the Antarctic have recently increased in number and size possibly due to climate warming. We have undertaken a preliminary study of the population genetics of one of these species by surveying variation in amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) within the Antarctic Hairgrass, Deschampsia antarctica. Populations of D. antarctica from two widely separated regions of the maritime Antarctic, namely Signy Island in the north and Léonie Islands 1350 km farther south, were characterized by low genetic diversity (only 15.95% of total genetic variation found within populations). Populations from the northern and southern maritime Antarctic were genetically distinct from each other (F CT = 37.10%), and low levels of historical gene flow occurred among them (Nm = 0.05). This genetic structure suggests that new populations of D. antarctica are founded by one or few individuals, which mainly reproduce by self-fertilization and/or vegetative propagation. Vegetative reproduction and selfing are, therefore, likely to have been key factors in the establishment of D. antarctica at new sites in the Antarctic during recent years.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".