MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evidence for independent origin of two spring‐spawning ciscoes (Salmoniformes: Coregonidae) in Germany

2006· article· en· W2130221029 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Schulz, Jörg Freyhof, Robert Saint‐Laurent, Kjartan Østbye, Thomas Mehner, Louis Bernatchez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSympatric speciationBiologyIntrogressionCoregonusAllopatric speciationMitochondrial DNAZoologyMicrosatelliteFisheryPopulationGeneticsAlleleGeneFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Combined analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and microsatellite loci were performed to assess the genetic differentiation of two spring‐spawning ciscoes from each other and from sympatric Coregonus albula in two German lakes. Polymorphism was screened at six microsatellite loci and mtDNA for a total of 247 and 94 ciscoes, respectively. Microsatellite data showed a weak differentiation between spring‐spawning Coregonus fontanae and sympatric C. albula in Lake Stechlin ( F ST = 0–0·008), whereas a significant differentiation was observed between spring‐spawning Coregonus lucinensis and sympatric C. albula in Lake Breiter Luzin ( F ST = 0·013–0·039). A more pronounced genetic difference was observed between both spring‐spawning species ( F ST = 0·05–0·128). Shared mtDNA haplotypes among sympatric species within both Lake Stechlin and Lake Breiter Luzin were observed, whereas no haplotype was shared between C. fontanae and C. lucinensis . These results suggest an independent origin for spring‐spawning ciscoes in each lake. Evidence is also provided for mtDNA introgression of Coregonus sardinella into C. lucinensis and C. albula in Lake Breiter Luzin. Postglacially, this species or at least a population which showed mtDNA introgression has colonized the Baltic Sea basin up to the glacial margin that was located between Lakes Stechlin and Breiter Luzin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207