Discordant patterns of population structure for two co‐distributed snake species across a fragmented Ontario landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim The goal of our study was to investigate the effects of a fragmented landscape on the genetic population structure of two sympatric snake species that differ in habitat preference. The eastern garter snake ( Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis ) is a common, habitat generalist, whereas the endangered eastern foxsnake ( Mintonius [ Elaphe ] gloydi) is rarer, geographically restricted, and a marsh‐specialist. We were most interested in comparing the genetic population structure of both species and identifying any natural and human‐created features of the landscape that overlap with genetic disjunctions. Location Southwestern Ontario, Canada, surveying over half of the remaining range of the eastern foxsnake. Methods We utilized DNA microsatellite markers to examine genetic population structure of both species. The number of genetically distinct clusters for each species was determined using both Bayesian spatial assignment and spatial principal component analyses (sPCA). Genetic clusters were overlaid onto a habitat map to deduce possible physiognomic barriers to gene flow. Results Spatial assignment revealed three genetic clusters for garter snakes and five for foxsnakes. Each individual garter snake had a near equal probability of membership to two or more clusters with no cluster mapping onto a discrete geographic region, indicating that garter snakes comprise a single genetic population. The identified foxsnake clusters correspond to geographically circumscribed locations on the landscape, roughly coincident with isolated patches of suitable habitat. sPCAs revealed significant global allelic structure for foxsnakes, but not for garter snakes. No significant local structure was found for either species. Main Conclusions Our results imply that foxsnakes and garter snakes are differentially impacted by the same landscape or have dramatically different effective population sizes. Unsuitable intervening habitat such as agricultural tracts and roads between existing populations of foxsnakes appears to act as barriers to gene flow, while garter snake movement appears unrestricted by these features. Our findings have important implications for the management of eastern foxsnakes.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".