Butterfly blues: population genetic assessment of wild lupine (<i>Lupinus perennis</i> L.) in endangered Karner blue butterfly habitat around central-west Michigan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat degradation can have significant effects on native species inhabiting natural ecosystems. Within oak barrens and oak–pine barrens ecosystems, there is a complex interspecies interaction between the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly ( Lycaeides melissa samuelis) and its obligate host plant, wild lupine ( Lupinus perennis L.). Recruitment of wild lupine is critical for maintaining butterfly populations; however, this recruitment can be impeded by habitat fragmentation. Reduced recruitment can result in low genetic diversity in isolated populations, limiting its adaptive potential to respond to environmental change. This study was aimed at understanding the genetic diversity and population structure of wild lupine populations throughout central and west Michigan. We identified significant population structure across most of the populations sampled, with only two sites not significantly different from each other. No sites within our study area displayed statistically significant levels of inbreeding. There are also at least two genetic clusters of wild lupine present within our study region, although there is significant overlap among these groups, indicating that genetic differentiation among clusters may be limited.
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".