MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217446406 · doi:10.17348/jbrit.v11.i1.1138

Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the north-temperate Labrador Teas (Ericaceae: Rhododendron Subsect. Ledum) suggests a complex genetic history

2017· article· en· W3217446406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Hart, Kathleen A. Kron, Emily L. Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Institute of Education
KeywordsTaxonEricaceaePhylogenetic treeBiologyChloroplast DNARange (aeronautics)PhylogeneticsMonophylyEvolutionary biologyBotanyClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Labrador teas are a group of nearly circumboreal shrubs or sub-shrubs inhabiting damp habitats. The 4–7 currently recognized species are classified within Rhododendron subg. Rhododendron section Rhododendron subsect. Ledum. In floral characters, these species are extremely similar. In vegetative characters, species limits in the Labrador teas have been difficult to determine because many of the traditionally used morphological characters vary continually across the geographic range. This study investigated evolutionary history and preliminary consideration of some species boundaries in the Labrador teas using DNA sequence data from five molecular markers to generate a preliminary phylogeny of R. subsect. Ledum. Data were analyzed using Maximum Parsimony, Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian methods. The nuclear data indicate a monophyletic subsect. Ledum, but chloroplast data indicate that the North American taxa have an evolutionary history separate from the European and Asian taxa, suggesting that one or both lineages of subsect. Ledum may be of hybrid origin. Additionally, our analyses suggest that taxa combined in recent treatments (i.e. Rhododendron tomentosum) represent separate lineages and should be recognized as distinct instead of included within more broadly defined species, however our current level of sampling cannot completely resolve this issue. This study lays the groundwork for future phylogenetic studies within subsect. Ledum, illustrating the need to sample more intensively across taxa in order to capture what appears to be a complex genetic and biogeographic history.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Botanical Research Institute of TexasSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207