Genetic comparison of introduced and native populations of common buckthorn (<i>Rhamnus cathartica</i>), a woody shrub introduced into North America from Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduced from Europe to North America in the early 19th century as an ornamental shrub and for medicinal purposes, common buckthorn ( Rhamnus cathartica L.) has since spread and naturalized throughout regions of the United States and Canada. The purpose of this study was to investigate levels of genetic variation and population differentiation in R. cathartica in its introduced range in North America compared with its native range in Europe to better understand patterns of spread. By analyzing introduced and native populations using microsatellite markers, we found that introduced populations generally exhibited similar or slightly lower levels of genetic variation compared with native populations, consistent with a slight bottleneck effect. Introduced populations contained many different genotypes, indicating genetic admixture, rather than one or few genotypes. In a few cases, populations had been misidentified in the field and were glossy buckthorn ( Frangula alnus Mill.; syn. Rhamnus frangula L.). Overall, there was no substantial genetic differentiation detected between native and introduced populations of R. cathartica . Invasive spread in this species is likely due to its past horticultural history as well as adaptive biological traits such as competitive behavior, potential allelopathy, and seed dispersal via birds.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".