Clonal growth characteristics and diversity patterns of different Clintonia udensis (Liliaceae) diploid and tetraploid cytotypes in the Hualongshan Mountains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyploidization plays an important role in plant evolution and biodiversity. However, intraspecific polyploidy compared to interspecific polyploidy received less attention. Clintonia udensis (Liliaceae) possess diploid (2n = 2x = 14) and autotetraploid (2n = 4x = 28) cytotypes. In the Hualongshan Mountains, the autotetraploids grew on the northern slope, while the diploids grew on the southern slopes. The clonal growth characteristics and clonal architecture were measured and analyzed by field observations and morphological methods. The diversity level and differentiation patterns for two different cytotypes were investigated using SSR markers. The results showed that the clonal growth parameters, such as the bud numbers of each rhizome node and the ratio of rhizome branches in the autotetraploids were higher than those in the diploids. Both the diploids and autotetraploids appeared phalanx clonal architectures with short internodes between ramets. However, the ramets or genets of the diploids had a relatively scattered distribution, while those of the autotetraploids were relatively clumping. The diploids and autotetraploids all allocated more biomass to their vegetative growth. The diploids had a higher allocation to reproductive organs than that of autotetraploids, which indicated that the tetraploids invested more resources in clonal reproduction than diploids. The clone diversity and genetic diversity of the autotetraploids were higher than that of the diploids. Significant genetic differentiation between two different cytotypes was observed (P < 0.01). During establishment and evolution, C. udensis autotetraploids employed more clumping phalanx clonal architecture and exhibited more genetic variation than the diploids.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".