Genetic and ecological differences between two Utah endemics: US federally threatened<i>Townsendia aprica</i>and its close congener,<i>T. jonesii</i>var.<i>lutea</i>(Asteraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used genetic data from isozymes, along with soil analysis and ecological niche models to characterize two rare, morphologically similar Utah endemic Townsendias (Asteraceae). Townsendia aprica Welsh & Reveal and Townsendia jonesii (Beaman) Reveal var. lutea S.L. Welsh are herbaceous perennials endemic to adjacent areas of the Colorado Plateau region in southern Utah. Both are rare (T. aprica is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, USA), and the validity of recognizing them as separate has been questioned. Populations of both taxa were scored for nine informative isozyme loci. High levels of genetic variation were found in each, with little variation among populations within taxa and low but significant divergence estimated between the taxa (FST= 0.119). Neighbor-joining analysis revealed two moderately supported clusters of populations corresponding to the two taxa. Characteristics of the soils on which the two taxa occur differed significantly in percentage sand (higher for T. aprica), percentage clay, and CaCO3(both higher for T. jonesii var. lutea). Furthermore, ecological niche modeling using 19 climatic variables suggests that the two taxa occupy distinct niches. Taken together, these results support recognition of the two taxa as distinct, and suggest that they are equally imperiled based on their genetic and ecological features.
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 | 0.001 | 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".