Glacial refugia, haplotype distributions, and clonal richness of the <i>Daphnia pulex</i> complex in arctic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a large international Arctic biodiversity expedition (Tundra Northwest '99), we examined the distribution of members of the arctic Daphnia pulex complex (Cladocera, Anomopoda) from 121 tundra ponds, spread across 16 sites spanning a large portion of arctic Canada (i.e. from 62 degrees 22' N to 79 degrees 01' N; 66 degrees 45' W to 139 degrees 37' W). Using allozyme electrophoresis and mitochondrial (mt)DNA analyses, we examined the population genetic (clonal) structure of these populations. The following taxa were detected in this complex: Daphnia pulicaria, D. middendorffiana and D. tenebrosa. Clear geographical differences in mean clonal richness and diversity were observed, with most western sites exhibiting higher clonal richness and diversity, than sites in the eastern Canadian Arctic. For both the pulicaria group (i.e. D. pulicaria and D. middendorffiana) and D. tenebrosa, the highest mean regional clonal richness was detected from the southern section of Banks Island, an unglaciated site situated on the edge or directly in the eastern fringe of the Beringian glacial refuge. A significant negative correlation was found between geographical distance from the Beringian edge, and overall regional clonal richness (i.e. sites closer to the edge harboured greater clonal richness). These results clearly indicate that more recently deglaciated regions (i.e. eastern Canadian Arctic) harbour lower levels of clonal richness than western regions nearer Beringia. We discuss the role that glacial refugia have played in influencing both biotic and genetic diversity in arctic taxa.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".