Genetic diversity and population structure among native, naturalized, and invasive populations of the common yellow monkeyflower, <i>Mimulus guttatus</i> (Phrymaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An ongoing controversy in invasion biology is the prevalence of colonizing plant populations that are able to establish and spread, while maintaining limited amounts of genetic variation. Invasive populations can be established through several routes including from a single source or from multiple introductions. The aim of this study was to examine genetic diversity in populations of Mimulus guttatus in the United Kingdom, where the species is considered invasive, and compare this diversity to that in native populations on the west coast of North America. Additionally, we looked at diversity in non‐native populations that have not yet become invasive (naturalized populations) in eastern North America. We investigated population structure among populations in these three regions and attempted to uncover the sources for populations that have established in the naturalized and invasive regions. We found that genetic diversity was, on average, relatively high in populations from the invasive UK region and comparable to native populations. Contrastingly, two naturalized M. guttatus populations were low in both genetic and genotypic diversity, indicating a history of asexual reproduction and self‐fertilization. A third naturalized population was found to be a polyploid Mimulus hybrid of unknown origin. Our results demonstrate that M. guttatus has likely achieved colonization success outside of its native western North America distribution by a variety of establishment pathways, including those with genetic and demographic benefits resulting from multiple introductions in the UK, reproductive assurance through selfing, and asexual reproduction in eastern North America, and possible polyploidization in one Canadian population.
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".