Data and R scripts for: Quality not quantity: seedlings of the invasive hybrid cattail <i>Typha</i><i> </i>x <i>glauca</i> outcompete the more abundant seedlings of their maternal parent <i>T. angustifolia</i> x <i>glauca</i>) populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybrid cattails are invasive and expanding their range in North America. Although some of the processes contributing to the spread of hybrid cattails are known, these involve established plants and it is unclear how processes operating during plant mating and seed germination contribute to the hybrid’s success. Specifically, the frequency with which the maternal parent of F1 hybrids (Typha angustifolia) produces hybrid offspring is not known. Also unknown is whether hybrid cattails might outcompete other cattails at during early establishment. We investigated both of these questions by sampling open-pollinated T. angustifolia fruits from 12 sites around Peterborough, ON, Canada; germinating seeds and growing them either with or without seedling competition; and genotyping a sample of those seedlings to examine the frequency with which T. angustifolia produces hybrid offspring and whether this frequency depends on the presence of seedling competition. We found that the minority of seedlings were F1 hybrids, but this depended on whether seedlings were exposed to competition: without competition, 14% of seedlings were hybrids but this number jumped to 29% with competition. Our data indicate that F1 hybrids are formed less frequently than T. angustifolia, but they benefit from competitive interactions with other cattails even at early developmental stages.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.390 | 0.154 |
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".