MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W60598788 · doi:10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/771

ANALYSIS OF POPULUS TREMULOIDES CLONAL VARIATION AND DELINEATION IN THE OTTAWA NATIONAL FOREST

2014· dissertation· en· W60598788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristina N. Flesher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypic traitPhenotypePopulationPhenologyMicrosatelliteGeneticsBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technique of delineating Populus tremuloides (Michx.) clonal colonies based on morphology and phenology has been utilized in many studies and forestry applications since the 1950s. Recently, the availability and robustness of molecular markers has challenged the validity of such approaches for accurate clonal identification. However, genetically sampling an entire stand is largely impractical or impossible. For that reason, it is often necessary to delineate putative genet boundaries for a more selective approach when genetically analyzing a clonal population. Here I re-evaluated the usefulness of phenotypic delineation by: (1) genetically identifying clonal colonies using nuclear microsatellite markers, (2) assessing phenotypic inter- and intraclonal agreement, and (3) determining the accuracy of visible characters to correctly assign ramets to their respective genets. The long-term soil productivity study plot 28 was chosen for analysis and is located in the Ottawa National Forest, MI (46° 37'60.0" N, 89° 12'42.7" W). In total, 32 genets were identified from 181 stems using seven microsatellite markers. The average genet size was 5.5 ramets and six of the largest were selected for phenotypic analyses. Phenotypic analyses included budbreak timing, DBH, bark thickness, bark color or brightness, leaf senescence, leaf serrations, and leaf length ratio. All phenotypic characters, except for DBH, were useful for the analysis of inter- and intraclonal variation and phenotypic delineation. Generally, phenotypic expression was related to genotype with multiple response permutation procedure (MRPP) intraclonal distance values ranging from 0.148 and 0.427 and an observed MRPP delta value=0.221 when the expected delta=0.5. The phenotypic traits, though, overlapped significantly among some clones. When stems were assigned into phenotypic groups, six phenotypic groups were identified with each group containing a dominant genotype or clonal colony. All phenotypic groups contained stems from at least two clonal colonies and no clonal colony was entirely contained within one phenotypic group. These results demonstrate that phenotype varies with genotype and stand clonality can be determined using phenotypic characters, but phenotypic delineation is less precise. I therefore recommend that some genetic identification follow any phenotypic delineation. The amount of genetic identification required for clonal confirmation is likely to vary based on stand and environmental conditions. Further analysis, however, is needed to test these findings in other forest stands and populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207