The seabird paradox: dispersal, genetic structure and population dynamics in a highly mobile, but philopatric albatross species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The philopatric behaviour of albatrosses has intrigued biologists due to the high mobility of these seabirds. It is unknown how albatrosses maintain a system of fragmented populations without frequent dispersal movements, in spite of the long-term temporal heterogeneity in resource distribution at sea. We used both genetic (amplified fragment length polymorphism) and capture-mark-recapture (CMR) data to identify explicitly which among several models of population dynamics best applies to the wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans) and to test for migration-drift equilibrium. We previously documented an extremely low genetic diversity in this species. Here, we show that populations exhibit little genetic differentiation across the species' range (Theta(B) < 0.05, where Theta(B) is an F(ST) analogue). Furthermore, there was no evidence of hierarchical structure or isolation-by-distance. Wright's F(ST) between pairs of colonies were low in general and the pattern was consistent with a nonequilibrium genetic model. In contrast, CMR data collected over the last decades indicated that about one bird per cohort has dispersed among islands. Overall, F(ST) values were not indicative of contemporary dispersal as inferred from CMR data. Moreover, all genotypes grouped together in a cluster analysis, indicating that current colonies may have derived from one ancestral source that had a low genetic diversity. A metapopulation dynamics model including a recent (postglacial) colonization of several islands seems consistent with both the very low levels of genetic diversity and structure within the wandering albatross. Yet, our data suggest that several other factors including ongoing gene flow, recurrent long-distance dispersal and source-sink dynamics have contributed to different extent in shaping the genetic signature observed in this species. Our results show that an absence of genetic structuring may in itself reveal little about the true population dynamics in seabirds, but can provide insights into important processes when a comparison with other information, such as demographic data, is possible.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".