Phenotypic and genotypic population differentiation in the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica: results from RAPD analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 254:163-176 (2003) - doi:10.3354/meps254163 Phenotypic and genotypic population differentiation in the bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica: results from RAPD analysis Sebastian P. Holmes*, Rob Witbaard, Jaap van der Meer Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee (NIOZ), Postbus 59, 1790 AB, Den Burg, Texel, The Netherlands *Email: holmes@nioz.nl ABSTRACT: The bivalve mollusc Arctica islandica is an important commercial species with a presumed panmictic dispersal strategy, and is widely distributed throughout much of the soft sediment benthos of the North Atlantic continental shelf. Previous studies have shown that there can be gross morphological differences between populations, which has led to the suggestion that this may be reflected in genotype. So far, only one study has examined the population genetics of this species, revealing, depending upon location, that populations are only genetically distinct at a macroscale (>1000 km), thereby supporting the assumption of panmixia. Examination of the quantitative morphological traits between 5 different populations (4 North Sea and 1 Canadian) determined that all populations could be readily identified from their unique morphologies (shapes/growth patterns) derived from 2 factors resulting from a principal components analysis. Investigation, using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis, into the genetics of the populations, to indirectly assess whether the observed phenotypic differences could be related to potential differences in genotype, revealed that all populations were genetically distinct (between populations overall phiST = 0.662) from each other even at a microscale (<25 km) (phiST = 0.719). However, no correlation between genetic distance, morphological distance and/or geographical distance, whatever metric was applied, could be obtained. It is concluded that although phenotypic differences can be used to distinguish between populations of A. islandica, it should not and cannot be used to infer genetic differences in the absence of further studies. What is interesting is that the results from the genetic analysis dispute the presumption that the dispersal patterns of A. islandica is in any shape or form panmictic. This has very important consequences for the management of the species. The results are discussed with reference to the possible mechanisms responsible for maintaining a high degree of genetic diversity between the populations that were studied. KEY WORDS: Arctica islandica · Dispersal · Genotypic · Panmixia · Phenotypic · RAPD Full text in pdf format PreviousNextExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 254. Online publication date: June 04, 2003 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2003 Inter-Research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".