MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial and genetic structure of host‐associated differentiation in the parasitoid <i>Copidosoma gelechiae</i>

2009· article· en· W2138645658 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. R. KOLACZAN, Stephen B. Heard, Kari A. Segraves, David M. Althoff, J. D. Nason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersRhode Island Department of Environmental ManagementNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySympatric speciationParasitoidHost (biology)Amplified fragment length polymorphismEvolutionary biologyZoologyEcologyPopulationGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Host-associated differentiation (HAD) appears to be an important driver of diversification in the hyperdiverse phytophagous and parasitoid insects. The gallmaking moth Gnorimoschema gallaesolidaginis has undergone HAD on two sympatric goldenrods (Solidago), and HAD has also been documented in its parasitoid Copidosoma gelechiae, with the intriguing suggestion that differentiation has proceeded independently in multiple populations. We tested this suggestion with analysis of Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) markers for C. gelechiae collections from the midwestern and northeastern United States and eastern Canada. AFLP data were consistent with the existence of HAD, with between-host F(ST) significant before Bonferroni correction in two of seven sympatric populations. amova analysis strongly rejected a model of HAD with a single historical origin, and thus supported the repeated-HAD hypothesis. Copidosoma gelechiae shows significant host-associated divergence at a number of allozyme loci (Stireman et al., 2006), but only weak evidence via AFLPs for genome-wide differentiation, suggesting that this species is at a very early stage of HAD.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207