Confusing boundaries of the Labrador tea species: dispersal history explains the lack of clear species structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Labrador teas (genus Rhododendron, subsection Ledum) are a complex of species widely distributed in the Northern Hemisphere. They occupy cold-resistant plant communities from highlands to forest understorey and wetland habitats almost circumboreally and they are especially abundant in Northeast Asia and northern North America, yet there are no clear species boundaries in this group. The genetic structure of species of subsect. Ledum from Eurasia and North America as well as the dispersal history of the group require clarification. METHODS: The phylogeny and biogeography of subsect. Ledum of the genus Rhododendron were assessed using phylogenetic trees constructed based on the analysis of variation in chloroplast petB-petD, trnV-ndhC, trnH-psbA, K2R-K707, atpB oligo2 - rbcL oligo5 and nuclear (ITS1) markers of four Eurasian and one American species (65 populations, 408 individuals). The data were evaluated with maximum parsimony and Bayesian analysis. Molecular dating and reconstruction of ancestral areas were performed. KEY RESULTS: Dense sampling revealed widespread presence of shared haplotypes and ribotypes among Ledum populations and species. Two American, three mixed and one Eurasian lineage diversified during the Neogene climate cooling and then rapidly dispersed during the Pleistocene. The ability to accumulate high genetic diversity and to preserve it across distribution ranges and generations prevented Ledum from lineage sorting. As a result, a species complex with a reserve of genetic variability appeared. CONCLUSIONS: Although no clear phylogenetic inference can be obtained at present, the plastid genealogy is consistent with the nuclear genealogy and demonstrates the processes involved in speciation in the Ledum species complex.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".