Genomics for species delineation and conservation status determination: the Black Maple as a case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assessment of the conservation status of species is crucial to effective conservation strategies, particularly in the current context of global changes. However, the quality of these assessments can be undermined by taxonomic uncertainties. One such case is the black maple whose conservation status is incongruent among Canadian provinces and American states where it naturally occurs. Morphological disparities between sugar maple and black maple led to their description as distinct species at the end of the 19th century, yet extensive hybridization between the two forms and low genetic differentiation has been reported since. The consensus on the taxonomical designation of black maple remains elusive and is sometimes recognised as a subspecies or ecotype of the sugar maple. To further investigate genetic distinctiveness of sugar and black maple, we analyzed high-throughput sequencing data obtained from two 700-meters apart stands within a contiguous forest where the two maples coexist. We sampled groups of individuals presenting the typical morphological characters of limb outlines and pubescence of each maple. Genetic data unveiled substantial differentiation between these two maples, confirming the distinctiveness of the black maple gene pools and justifying its recognition as a distinct species. Furthermore, black maple populations in Quebec exhibited markedly greater genetic structure and inbreeding compared to their sugar maple counterparts at equivalent latitudes. These findings not only affirm the species-level taxonomy of black maple but also represent the first characterization of genetic diversity within populations situated at the northern edge of its distribution range. Its high level of inbreeding is concerning for the conservation of the species in Quebec, and more research is needed to identify its origin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".