Neither genetic nor observational data alone are sufficient for understanding sex‐biased dispersal in a social‐group‐living species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex sex-biased dispersal patterns often characterize social-group-living species and may ultimately drive patterns of cooperation and competition within and among groups. This study investigates whether observational data or genetic data alone can elucidate the potentially complex dispersal patterns of social-group-living black and white colobus monkeys (Colobus guereza, "guerezas"), or whether combining both data types provides novel insights. We employed long-term observation of eight neighbouring guereza groups in Kibale National Park, Uganda, as well as microsatellite genotyping of these and two other neighbouring groups. We created a statistical model to examine the observational data and used dyadic relatedness values within and among groups to analyse the genetic data. Analyses of observational and genetic data both supported the conclusion that males typically disperse from their natal groups and often transfer into nearby groups and probably beyond. Both data types also supported the conclusion that females are more philopatric than males but provided somewhat conflicting evidence about the extent of female philopatry. Observational data suggested that female dispersal is rare or nonexistent and transfers into neighbouring groups do not occur, but genetic data revealed numerous pairs of closely related adult females among neighbouring groups. Only by combining both data types were we able to understand the complexity of sex-biased dispersal patterns in guerezas and the processes that could explain our seemingly conflicting results. We suggest that the data are compatible with a scenario of group dissolution prior to the start of this study, followed by female transfers into different neighbouring groups.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".