Genetics of reintroduced populations of the narrowly endemic thistle,<i>Cirsium pitcheri</i>(Asteraceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of any reintroduction is to provide sufficient genetic variability to buffer against changing selection pressures and ensure long-term survival. To date, few empirical studies have compared levels of genetic diversity in reintroduced and native plant populations. Using microsatellite markers, we measured the genetic diversity within reintroduced and native populations of the threatened Cirsium pitcher (Eaton) Torrey and Gray. We found that the use of local mixed source was successful in establishing populations with significantly higher genetic diversity (P < 0.005) than the native populations (allelic richness is 3.39 in reintroduced and 1.84 in native populations). However, the reintroduced populations had significantly higher inbreeding coefficients (P < 0.002) (F IS is 0.405 and 0.213 in reintroduced and in native populations, respectively), despite having multiple genetic founders, population sizes equivalent to native populations and a positive growth rate. These results may be due to inbreeding or the Wahlund effect, driven by genetic substructuring. This suggests that the small population size of these reintroduced populations may lead to genetic issues in the future, given the low number of flowering individuals each year. This highlights the importance of considering not only the number of source individuals but the effective population size of the reintroduction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".