Phylogenetic relationships among low-ploidy species of <i>Poa</i> using chloroplast sequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species of the genus Poa are taxonomically and genetically difficult to delineate owing to high and variable polyploidy, aneuploidy, and challenging breeding systems. Approximately 5% of the proposed species in Poa are considered to include or comprise diploids, but very few of those diploids are represented in seed collections. Recent phylogenetic studies of Poa have included some diploid species to elucidate Poa genome relationships. In this study, we build upon that foundation of diploid Poa relationships with additional confirmed diploid species and accessions, and with additional chloroplast sequences. We also include samples of P. pratensis and P. arachnifera to hone in on possible ancestral genomes in these two agronomic and highly polyploidy species. Relative to most species of Poa, Poa section Dioicopoa (P. ligularis, P. iridifolia, and P. arachnifera) contained relatively large chromosomes. Phylogenies were constructed using the TLF gene region and five additional chloroplast genes, and the placement of new species and accessions fit within chloroplast lineages previously reported better than by taxonomic subgenera and sections. Low-ploidy species in the P chloroplast lineage, such as P. iberica and P. remota, grouped closest to P. pratensis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".