Extensive hybridization in a contact zone between MacGillivray's warblers <i>Oporornis</i> <i>tolmiei</i> and mourning warblers <i>O. philadelphia</i> detected using molecular and morphological analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many pairs of related western and eastern avian taxa in North America, and for many of these, little is known about their interactions in sympatry. One example is provided by MacGillivray's warblers Oporornis tolmiei and mourning warblers Oporornis philadelphia . There have been occasional reports of range contact and hybridization between these forms, but recent authors have doubted these reports. We show that these two species do in fact come into extensive range contact in the southern Peace Region of British Columbia, just east of the Rocky Mountains. We analyze whether patterns of variation in morphometric traits, eye‐arcs, a mitochondrial DNA marker (COI), and a Z‐chromosome marker (CHD1Z) are consistent with reproductive isolation or hybridization in this contact zone. Each trait shows strong differences between allopatric MacGillivray's warblers and allopatric mourning warblers, yet in the contact zone there are many birds with a combination of traits typical of both species. This is clearly seen in the molecular markers, for which 18 of 50 birds genotyped in the contact zone have both western and eastern alleles. These patterns strongly indicate the presence of an extensive hybrid zone between MacGillivray's and mourning warblers. Variation in each of the four traits is explained well by a single sigmoidal cline, with a width of roughly 150 km (or 130 km based only on the molecular markers). This is only the fourth hybrid zone known among North American wood‐warblers (Parulidae).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".