Data from: Evaluating genomic data for management of local adaptation in a changing climate: a lodgepole pine case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluate genomic data, relative to phenotypic and climatic data, as a basis for assisted gene flow and genetic conservation. Using a common garden trial of 281 lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) provenances from across western Canada, we compare genomic data to phenotypic and climatic data to assess their effectiveness in characterizing the climatic drivers and spatial scale of local adaptation in this species. We find that phenotype-associated loci are equivalent or slightly superior to climate data for describing local adaptation in seedling traits, but that climate data is superior to bulk genomic data that have not been selected for phenotypic associations. We also find agreement between the climate variables associated with genomic variation and with 20-year heights from a long-term provenance trial, suggesting that genomic data may be a viable option for identifying climatic drivers of local adaptation where phenotypic data are unavailable. Genetic clines associated with the experimental traits occur at broad spatial scales, suggesting that standing variation of adaptive alleles for this and similar species does not require management at scales finer than are indicated by phenotypic data. This study demonstrates that genomic data are most useful when paired with phenotypic data, but can also fill some of the traditional roles of phenotypic data in management of species for which phenotypic trials are not feasible.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".