A similar phylogeographical structure among sympatric North American birches (<i>Betula</i>) is better explained by introgression than by shared biogeographical history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim A comparative analysis of the chloroplast (cp) DNA structure of eastern North American birches ( Betula ) was undertaken to infer the impacts of Quaternary climate change on the phylogeographical structure of these species. Location Eastern North America. Methods Genetic variation in chloroplast microsatellites (cp SSR s) and the psb A– trn H intergenic spacer in Betula papyrifera , Betula alleghaniensis and Betula lenta was analysed in samples from 65, 80 and 12 populations, respectively. Co‐occurring Betula uber , Betula populifolia and Betula cordifolia were also sampled to examine haplotype relationships and account for potential introgression. Haplotype networks, Bayesian analysis and comparisons of R ST and G ST values were used to evaluate the phylogeographical structure. Genetic diversity within and among species was compared using rarefaction analysis. Results The two most widespread species, B. papyrifera and B. alleghaniensis , showed high levels of haplotype diversity, while the Appalachian endemic B. lenta possessed a single haplotype. Bayesian analysis revealed three main phylogeographical groups for B. papyrifera and four groups for B. alleghaniensis , and these two species showed extensive regional haplotype sharing and a high introgression ratio. Main conclusions We postulate that at least three separate refugia contributed to the recolonization of B. papyrifera and B. alleghaniensis within eastern North America, while B. lenta appears to have recolonized from a single refugium. A high haplotype diversity of B. papyrifera and B. alleghaniensis in the Great Lakes region may reflect biogeographical contact between eastern and western lineages, with the potential influence of periglacial refugia. Similar phylogeographical patterns in the distantly related B. papyrifera and B. alleghaniensis represent a geographical turnover of the same locally shared haplotypes, pointing to introgression rather than shared biogeographical history as the mechanism. Although similar phylogeographical patterns are often interpreted as evidence for common biogeographical histories, our study demonstrates that such patterns can also arise through introgression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".