Contrasting Phylogeographic Patterns in Mitochondrial DNA and Microsatellites: Evidence of Female Philopatry and Male-biased Gene Flow among Regional Populations of the Blue-and-yellow Macaw (Psittaciformes:<i>Ara ararauna</i>) in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing the patterns of population differentiation among genetic markers with different modes of inheritance can provide insights into patterns of sex-biased dispersal and gene flow. The Blue-and-yellow Macaw (Ara ararauna) is a Neotropical parrot with a broad geographic distribution in South America. However, little is known about the natural history and current status of remaining wild populations, including levels of genetic variability. The progressive decline and possible fragmentation of populations may endanger this species in the near future. We analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control-region sequences and six microsatellite loci of Blue-and-yellow Macaws sampled throughout their geographic range in Brazil to describe population genetic structure, to make inferences about historical demography and dispersal behavior, and to provide insight for conservation efforts. Analyses of population genetic structure based on mtDNA showed evidence of two major populations in western and eastern Brazil that share a few lowfrequency haplotypes. This phylogeographic pattern seems to have originated by the historical isolation of Blue-and-yellow Macaw populations ∼374,000 years ago and has been maintained by restricted gene flow and female philopatry. By contrast, variation in biparentally inherited microsatellites was not structured geographically. Male-biased dispersal and female philopatry best explain the different patterns observed in these two markers. Because females disperse less than males, the two regional populations with well-differentiated mtDNA haplogroups should be considered two different management units for conservation purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".