MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283514055 · doi:10.1002/csc2.20807

An inventory of crop wild relatives and wild‐utilized plants in Canada

2022· article· en· W4283514055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jens Ulrich, Tara Moreau, Erika Luna‐Perez, Kephra Beckett, Lili K. Simon, Zoë Migicovsky, Axel Diederichsen, Colin K. Khoury

Bibliographic record

VenueCrop Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityDalhousie UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern Forest ProductsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEx situ conservationBiologyBiodiversityIn situ conservationCropAgroforestrySpecies diversityEcologyGenetic diversityEndangered speciesPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the face of global pressures of change and biodiversity loss, crop wild relatives (CWR) and wild‐utilized species (WUS) urgently require conservation attention. To advance conservation, we assembled a national inventory of CWR and WUS in Canada. To assess current ex situ conservation of these plant species, we gathered a virtual metacollection of accession data from botanical gardens and national genebanks. The inventory includes 779 CWR and WUS taxa (658 distinct species), with 263 (222 distinct species) that are related to food crops of national and global importance such as blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum L.), apple ( Malus domestica (Suckow) Borkh.), sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.), and saskatoon ( Amelanchier spp.). Sixty‐one food crop relatives are prioritized for breeding potential, and sixteen due to conservation threats. Although most food crop CWR are represented in ex situ collections (91% of species), representation of within‐species diversity is low (median = 5% of Canadian ecogeographic types represented per species). Poor representation of within‐species diversity demands an integrative conservation strategy that emphasizes in situ protection, especially focusing on wild populations in Canada's southern ecoregions where diversity is concentrated. While genebank collections represent higher accession counts per species, botanical gardens include living collections of fruit crop relatives and other woody perennials that are well situated to raise broader awareness of CWR and WUS. To promote further conservation action, we present a web application that enables conservation planners and practitioners to identify local CWR and WUS and to identify within‐species ecogeographic types that are underrepresented in ex situ conservation systems.

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 score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrop ScienceSame topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207