Multiple Introductions and Distinct Genetic Groups of Canada Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis) in China Revealed by Genomic Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite numerous studies reported in the context of ecology, the introduction history of the infamous invasive plant Canada goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) remains elusive. In the present study, we explored the sources and the number of introduction events of this species from its native areas into China. Using the genotyping-by-sequencing approach, we identified 34,035 selectively neutral single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers to infer the evolutionary trajectories of 77 S. canadensis individuals. Both the principal component analysis and the ADMIXTURE analysis revealed two genetic groups that are sympatric to each other in China and suggested the absence of genetic admixtures. The phylogenetic analysis indicated three feasible introduction routes and multiple introduction events of Canada goldenrod into China. Specifically, the one from the USA directly into China, the other from the USA into China through Japan, and the third from the USA into China through Europe. Based on the site frequency spectrum of these identified SNPs, we inferred strong bottleneck events for both genetic groups, and that the multiple introductions did not rescue the decline of genetic diversity. To conclude, multiple introduction events, genetic bottlenecks, and potential human-mediated spread characterize the introduction history of Canada goldenrod in China. The present study harnesses the power of SNP data in deciphering the evolutionary trajectory of invasive plants and paves the way for future studies concerning the invasion mechanism of Canada goldenrod.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".