The influence of landscape on gene flow in the eastern massasauga rattlesnake (<i>Sistrurus c. catenatus</i>): insight from computer simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how gene flow shapes contemporary population structure requires the explicit consideration of landscape composition and configuration. New landscape genetic approaches allow us to link such heterogeneity to gene flow within and among populations. However, the attribution of cause is difficult when landscape features are spatially correlated, or when genetic patterns reflect past events. We use spatial Bayesian clustering and landscape resistance analysis to identify the landscape features that influence gene flow across two regional populations of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake, Sistrurus c. catenatus. Based on spatially explicit simulations, we inferred how habitat distribution modulates gene flow and attempted to disentangle the effects of spatially confounded landscape features. We found genetic clustering across one regional landscape but not the other, and also local differences in the effect of landscape on gene flow. Beyond the effects of isolation-by-distance, water bodies appear to underlie genetic differentiation among individuals in one regional population. Significant effects of roads were additionally detected locally, but these effects are possibly confounded with the signal of water bodies. In contrast, we found no signal of isolation-by-distance or landscape effects on genetic structure in the other regional population. Our simulations imply that these local differences have arisen as a result of differences in population density or tendencies for juvenile rather than adult dispersal. Importantly, our simulations also demonstrate that the ability to detect the consequences of contemporary anthropogenic landscape features (e.g. roads) on gene flow may be compromised when long-standing natural features (e.g. water bodies) co-exist on the landscape.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".