Landscape genetic analyses reveal cryptic population structure and putative selection gradients in a large‐scale estuarine environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disentangling the relative contributions of selective and neutral processes underlying phenotypic and genetic variation under natural, environmental conditions remains a central challenge in evolutionary ecology. However, much of the variation that could be informative in this area of research is likely to be cryptic in nature; thus, the identification of wild populations suitable for study may be problematic. We use a landscape genetics approach to identify such populations of three-spined stickleback inhabiting the Saint Lawrence River estuary. We sampled 1865 adult fish over multiple years. Individuals were genotyped for nine microsatellite loci, and georeferenced multilocus data were used to infer population groupings, as well as locations of genetic discontinuities, under a Bayesian model framework (geneland). We modelled environmental data using nonparametric multiple regression to explain genetic differentiation as a function of spatio-ecological effects. Additionally, we used genotype data to estimate dispersal and gene flow to parameterize a simple model predicting adaptive vs. plastic divergence between demes. We demonstrate a bipartite division of the genetic landscape into freshwater and maritime zones, independent of geographical distance. Moreover, we show that the greatest proportion of genetic variation (31.5%) is explained by environmental differences. However, the potential for either adaptive or plastic divergence between demes is highly dependent upon the strength of migration and selection. Consequently, we highlight the utility of landscape genetics as a tool for hypothesis generation and experimental design, to identify focal populations and putative selection gradients, in order to distinguish between phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".