MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111620279 · doi:10.1111/jpy.13120

Diversity of the green macroalgal genus <i>Ulva</i> (Ulvophyceae, Chlorophyta) from the east and gulf coast of the United States based on molecular data

2020· article· en· W3111620279 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James T. Melton, Juan Lopez‐Bautista

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Phycology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsUlvophyceaeBiologyChlorophytaMolecular phylogeneticsEcologyCladeSpecies diversityIntertidal zoneTaxonBiodiversityBotanyAlgaePhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ulva (Ulvophyceae, Chlorophyta) is common in intertidal environments and can also be found in freshwater ecosystems. The difficulty to morphologically identify Ulva species due to cryptic diversity and morphological plasticity has caused a taxonomic conundrum. Fortunately, molecular data have begun to unravel a better understanding of its diversity. Here, we present a molecular analysis with 247 samples of Ulva from the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic USA based on chloroplast (rbcL and tufA) and nuclear (ITS1-5.8S-ITS2) molecular markers. Twenty-four Ulva taxa had previously been reported for this area based on morphology and earlier molecular studies mostly from Northeastern USA and Canada. In this study, sixteen Ulva clades were identified representing 13 named clades and putatively three undescribed species. Only nine of the 24 taxa previously reported for the Western Atlantic were confirmed. Four species were identified for the first time in the U.S. East and Gulf Coast (U. aragoënsis, U. californica, U. meridionalis, and U. tepida). This study provides a foundation for future research on Ulva in this area and reiterates the necessity of using molecular-assisted identifications for this group.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations34
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207