Genetic diversity and population structure in <i>Chrysolepis chrysophylla</i> (golden chinquapin; Fagaceae): SSRs vs SNPs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simple sequence repeat (SSR) and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes on the same plant samples of Chrysolepis chrysophylla (Douglas ex Hook.) Hjelmq. (Fagaceae; golden chinquapin) from 22 sites were used to determine genetic diversity and population structure. One site of C. sempervirens (Kellogg) Hjelmq. allowed interspecific vs. intraspecific comparisons. SSRs and SNPs yielded many similar results. Among-site variation contributed 13% to 17% of the genetic variation and Fst estimates of 0.14 to 0.17 were in the range expected among Fagaceae species rather than among populations within a species. The northern sites tended to group separately on the first two axes of multivariate scatterplots from southern sites. Sites in two geographically isolated areas were divergent: (i) the Hood Canal, Washington population was relatively more genetically distant from other golden chinquapin sites than was our C. sempervirens site; (ii) three coastal southern California sites were moderately diverged. The Hood Canal site had a negative inbreeding coefficient, fewer alleles, lower heterozygosity, and differed from the Skamania County, Washington site as well as all other sites. Hood Canal trees are distinguished by disjunct geography and by these molecular results. This suggests that the golden chinquapin near Hood Canal be treated as a management unit, and potential conservation actions are discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".