Do landscape processes predict phylogeographic patterns in the wood frog?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding factors that influence population connectivity and the spatial distribution of genetic variation is a major goal in molecular ecology. Improvements in the availability of high-resolution geographic data have made it increasingly possible to quantify the effects of landscape features on dispersal and genetic structure. However, most studies examining such landscape effects have been conducted at very fine (e.g. landscape genetics) or broad (e.g. phylogeography) spatial scales. Thus, the extent to which processes operating at fine spatial scales are linked to patterns at larger scales remains unclear. Here, we test whether factors impacting wood frog dispersal at fine spatial scales are correlated with genetic structure at regional scales. Using recently developed methods borrowed from electrical circuit theory, we generated landscape resistance matrices among wood frog populations in eastern North America based on slope, a wetness index, land cover and absolute barriers to wood frog dispersal. We then determined whether these matrices are correlated with genetic structure based on six microsatellite markers and whether such correlations outperform a landscape-free model of isolation by resistance. We observed significant genetic structure at regional spatial scales. However, topography and landscape variables associated with the intervening habitat between sites provide little explanation for patterns of genetic structure. Instead, absolute dispersal barriers appear to be the best predictor of regional genetic structure in this species. Our results suggest that landscape variables that influence dispersal, microhabitat selection and population structure at fine spatial scales do not necessarily explain patterns of genetic structure at broader scales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".