MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Do rivers function as genetic barriers for the plateau wood frog at high elevations?

2009· article· en· W2060119405 on OpenAlexaff
Shufang Zhao, Qiang Dai, Jinzhong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsPlateau (mathematics)Genetic structureIsolation by distanceBiologyPopulationFragmentation (computing)Analysis of molecular varianceEcologyMicrosatelliteGenetic distanceGenetic variationZoologyDemographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the plateau wood frog Rana kukunoris from the Hengduan Mountains as a model system, we tested whether rivers form significant genetic barriers (the riverine barrier hypothesis) to high elevation amphibians. Samples were collected from eight sites across three major river drainages, the Min, the Dadu and the Yalong Rivers, and the population genetic structure of these frogs was evaluated with data from eight microsatellite DNA loci. A large amount of genetic structure was found, and the pairwise F ST ranged from 0.022 to 0.508 and a global F ST was 0.215. Both analysis of molecular variance and isolation by distance analysis suggested that rivers, mountain ridges and geographic distances all contributed significantly to the population structure. However, no single landscape has prominent barrier effect to the plateau wood frog populations. An assignment analysis using the computer program Structure grouped the eight populations into four population clusters, and no single type of landscape can sufficiently explain the clustering. In conclusion, rivers do not appear to be the leading genetic barriers for the plateau wood frog. The strong population genetic structure is likely the consequence of attributes of the species, as opposed to environmental fragmentation, and the barrier effect of the landscapes is largely swamped by the large amount of intrinsic population structure.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207