ArticleAmerican journal of botany2025
Disentangling complex relationships and disjunctions in western Camassia: Integrating multiple criteria to resolve taxonomic boundaries.
Article in American journal of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phylogenetics withinPeerJ · 2026Article
- Disentangling complex relationships and disjunctions in western Camassia: Integrating multiple criteria to resolve taxonomic boundaries.American journal of botany · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
premiseUnderstanding genetic and morphological variability helps efforts to sustain landscapes and develop effective species concepts for resolving difficult groups. To unravel puzzling relationships and range disjunctions, we applied morphometrics, phenology, phylogenetics and population genetics in Camassia species with cultural, ecological, and conservation value, asking: Do the unusual Camassia populations in northeastern California represent previously unrecognized, disjunct C. howellii? Do C. howellii, C. leichtlinii, and C. quamash maintain diagnostic features in allopatry or sympatry? Are C. quamash subsp. breviflora and subsp. linearis taxonomically distinct?
methodsWe evaluated 34 Camassia populations in situ for morphometric traits, phenology, and habitat type, collecting tissue for population microsatellite and phylogenetic analyses (rpl16, trnD-trnT). Fieldwork and genetic analyses of Camassia species allowed hypothesis testing of all criteria.
resultsOregon and California populations of C. howellii shared 94-95% morphospace but differed significantly from C. leichtlinii and C. quamash, primarily in having more basal leaves, subglobose fruits, and smaller flowers that open in mid-late afternoon, closing at sunset without reopening. Both microsatellite and phylogenetic data indicated separation of the three species, with slight genetic differentiation between the disjunct populations of C. howellii. Subspecies of C. quamash differed morphologically and genetically, with clear phylogenetic separation.
conclusionsIntegrative approaches proved effective, affirming disputed species identities and upholding subspecific status for C. quamash subsp. linearis. For C. howellii, population genetic differentiation between disjunct regions appears congruent with phylogenetic analyses. Slight morphological differentiation of Oregon and California populations is consistent with geographic isolation, implying subspecific genetic divergence worthy of future study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.