Phylogeography of the prickly sculpin (<i>Cottus asper</i>) in north‐western North America reveals parallel phenotypic evolution across multiple coastal–inland colonizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Glacial cycles during the Pleistocene may have frequently contributed to parallel evolution of phenotypes across independently evolving genetic lineages associated with separate glacial refugia. Previous studies based on morphology suggested that the prickly sculpin (Cottus asper) survived the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in southern coastal and inland refugia, favouring allopatric divergence between coastal and inland prickling phenotypes, which vary in the degree to which spine‐like scales cover the body of the fish. Herein, we aimed to test whether parallel evolution across multiple genetic lineages rather than a single‐lineage origin of highly prickled inland sculpins could serve as an explanation for the biogeographical distribution of prickling phenotypes. Location North‐western North America, Southeast Alaska and Canada (British Columbia). Methods We used data from mitochondrial haplotypes and 19 microsatellite loci to identify distinct genetic lineages as a basis to interpret patterns of phenotypic evolution. Results The occurrence of multiple mtDNAgroups suggests that highly prickled inland phenotypes comprise more than one genetic lineage. Both mtDNAand microsatellite data are consistent with post‐glacial dispersal along the coast and repeated coastal to inland colonization events, as opposed to inland dispersal of a single lineage from a southern refugium to northern regions. Main conclusions Our results suggest that highly prickled inland phenotypes evolved repeatedly following multiple inland colonization events, probably via coastal rivers. The prickly sculpin therefore provides an example of recent (post‐glacial) parallel evolution, potentially facilitated by standing genetic variation already present in the ancestral coastal populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".