MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of landscape and history on diversification of a montane, stream‐breeding amphibian

2008· article· en· W2079245649 on OpenAlexafffund
Daria Koscinski, Adam G. Yates, Paul Handford, Stephen C. Lougheed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biogeography · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeographyEcologyGeographical distancePopulationGenetic structureHabitatRange (aeronautics)Isolation by distanceGene flowGenetic variationCartographyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to understand the roles of landscape features in shaping patterns of contemporary and historical genetic diversification among populations of the Andean tree frog ( Hypsiboas andinus ) across spatial scales. Location Andes mountains, north‐western Argentina, South America. Methods Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were utilized to assess genetic differentiation among populations and calculate population pair‐wise genetic distances. Three models of movement, namely traditional straight‐line distance and two effective distances based on habitat classification, were examined to determine which of these explained the most variation in pair‐wise population genetic differentiation. The two habitat classifications were based on digital vegetation and hydrology layers that were generated from a 90‐m resolution digital elevation model (DEM) and known relationships between elevation and habitat. Mantel tests were conducted to test for correlations between geographic and genetic distance matrices and to estimate the percentage variation explained by each type of geographic distance. To investigate the location of possible barriers to gene flow, we used Monmonier’s maximum difference algorithm as implemented in barrier 2.2. Results At both geographic scales, effective distances explained more variation in genetic differentiation than did straight‐line distance. The least‐cost distances based on the simple classification performed better than the more detailed habitat classification. We controlled for the effects of historical range fragmentation determined from previous nested clade analyses, and therefore evaluated the effect of different distances on the genetic variation attributable to more recent factors. Effective distances identified populations that were highly divergent as a result of isolation in unsuitable habitats. The proposed locations of barriers to gene flow identified using Monmonier’s maximum difference algorithm corresponded well with earlier analyses and supported findings from our partial Mantel tests. Main conclusions Our results indicate that landscape features have been important in both historical and contemporary genetic structuring of populations of H. andinus at both large and small spatial scales. A landscape genetic perspective offers novel insights not provided by traditional phylogeographic studies: (1) effective distances can better explain patterns of differentiation in populations, especially in heterogeneous landscapes where barriers to dispersal may be common; and (2) least‐cost path analysis can help to identify corridors of movement between populations that are biologically more realistic.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

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 head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations27
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiogeographySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207