Comparative population structure of cavity-nesting sea ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing collection of mtDNA genetic information from waterfowl species across North America suggests that larger-bodied cavity-nesting species exhibit greater levels of population differentiation than smaller-bodied congeners. Although little is known about nest-cavity availability for these species, one hypothesis to explain differences in population structure is reduced dispersal tendency of larger-bodied cavity-nesting species due to limited abundance of large cavities. To investigate this hypothesis, we examined population structure of three cavity-nesting waterfowl species distributed across much of North America: Barrow's Goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), Common Goldeneye (B. clangula), and Bufflehead (B. albeola). We compared patterns of population structure using both variation in mtDNA control-region sequences and band-recovery data for the same species and geographic regions. Results were highly congruent between data types, showing structured population patterns for Barrow's and Common Goldeneye but not for Bufflehead. Consistent with our prediction, the smallest cavity-nesting species, the Bufflehead, exhibited the lowest level of population differentiation due to increased dispersal and gene flow. Results provide evidence for discrete Old and New World populations of Common Goldeneye and for differentiation of regional groups of both goldeneye species in Alaska, the Pacific Northwest, and the eastern coast of North America. Results presented here will aid management objectives that require an understanding of population delineation and migratory connectivity between breeding and wintering areas. Comparative studies such as this one highlight factors that may drive patterns of genetic diversity and population trends.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".