Identification of native and invasive subspecies of common reed (<i>Phragmites australis</i>) in Alberta, Canada, by RNase-H-dependent PCR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonies of the invasive subspecies of common reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud) were found in Alberta in 2016. To facilitate the rapid subspecies identification necessary to support management of this invasive subspecies, a simple and time-saving protocol was developed to differentiate the invasive from the native subspecies. This protocol was based on the RNase-H-dependent PCR (rhPCR) technique, which utilizes the DNA polymorphism found in two chloroplast DNA regions. Compared with the widely used restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) protocol, the rhPCR had the same level of accuracy for subspecies identification, but is simpler and less time-consuming. Using both the rhPCR and RFLP techniques, 27 samples of P. australis derived from 21 colonies in nine Alberta counties were tested to determine their subspecies identity. Fourteen colonies were identified as invasive subspecies, and seven were native subspecies. Based on these preliminary data, we concluded that the invasive subspecies has established across Alberta, and now may be more common than the native subspecies. In addition, RFLP results confirmed that the rhPCR was accurate and could be used independently to identify P. australis subspecies in future studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".