MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334163578 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1500430

Rapid range expansion of a newly formed allopolyploid weed in the genus <i>Salsola</i>

2016· article· en· W2334163578 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shana R. Welles, Norman C. Ellstrand

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorth American Interfraternal FoundationNetworks of Centres of Excellence of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyGenusWeedRange (aeronautics)Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Newly formed species (neospecies) can experience a variety of demographic fates, ranging from rapid invasive expansion to rapid extinction. Here we investigate the fate of the neospecies Salsola ryanii 10 years after its initial discovery in the Central Valley of California, USA. This species is an allopolyploid derived via hybridization between the invasive species, S. australis and S. tragus. METHODS: We conducted a systematic collection of Salsola species from 53 sites in California. Species-specific intersimple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to determine the species of each individual collected. The range of S. ryanii identified in this study was compared to the range in 2002 to determine how the range has shifted in the decade between surveys. KEY RESULTS: In this survey, we identified 15 sites where S. ryanii was present (28% of sites), a significant population number increase since 2002. CONCLUSIONS: Salsola ryanii has undergone a dramatic population number expansion in the decade since it was originally documented. We are not aware of any plant neospecies whose range spontaneously experienced such a dramatic expansion. Salsola ryanii has every indication of being just as invasive as its highly invasive parents.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207