MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411167372 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2025-0033

Phylogeography of <i>Bistorta plumosa</i>, an amphi-Beringian Arctic herb with high genetic variation

2025· article· en· W4411167372 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Geraldine A. Allen, Laurie J. McCormick, Kendrick L. Marr

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia MuseumUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyHerbPhylogeographyBotanyGenetic variationGeneticsPhylogeneticsGeneTraditional medicineMedicinal herbs

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geographic origins of the present-day Arctic flora are complex. Studies of genetic structure provide valuable insights, but remain based on too few species. The Bistorta officinalis complex, poorly known but widely distributed in both alpine and Arctic regions of the Northern Hemisphere, includes the Arctic tundra species Bistorta plumosa (Small) Greene in northwestern North America and eastern Asia. We sequenced two plastid DNA regions in 73 samples of B. plumosa and related species from Yukon, Alaska, and Russia, performed Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, and analyzed phylogeographic variation in B. plumosa. We show that B. plumosa represents a distinct amphi-Beringian lineage within the B. officinalis complex. We identified strikingly high genetic diversity within B. plumosa, higher than in most Beringian plant species that have been studied and similar to other species with a long history of persistence in Arctic habitats. The current geographic range of B. plumosa is restricted mostly to unglaciated areas but has high levels of genetic diversity in all parts of the sampled range, indicating little range shift at least since the Last Glacial Maximum. This contrasts with many Arctic tundra species, and emphasizes the variety in patterns of post-Pleistocene range expansion that can underlie similar geographic ranges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.206

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.170 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207