ADAPTIVE MIGRATORY DIVERGENCE AMONG SYMPATRIC BROOK CHARR POPULATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological processes clearly contribute to population divergence, yet how they interact over complex life cycles remains poorly understood. Notably, the evolutionary consequences of migration between breeding and non-breeding areas have received limited attention. We provide evidence for a negative association between interpopulation differences in migration (between breeding and feeding areas, as well as within each) and the amount of gene flow (m) among three brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations inhabiting Mistassini Lake, Quebec, Canada. Individuals (n = 1166) captured throughout lake feeding areas over two consecutive sampling years were genotyped (10 microsatellites) and assigned to one of the three populations. Interpopulation differences in migration were compared based on spatial distribution overlap, habitat selection, migration distance within feeding areas, and morphology. We observed a temporally stable, heterogeneous spatial distribution within feeding areas among populations, with the extent of spatial segregation related to differential habitat selection (represented by littoral zone substrate). Spatial segregation was lowest and gene flow highest (m = 0.015) between two populations breeding in separate lake inflows. Segregation was highest and gene flow was lowest (mean m = 0.007) between inflow populations and a third population breeding in the outflow. Compared to outflow migrants, inflow migrants showed longer migration distances within feeding areas (64-70 km vs. 22 km). After entering natal rivers to breed, inflow migrants also migrated longer distances (35-75 km) and at greater elevations (50-150 m) to breeding areas than outflow migrants (0-15 km; -10-0 m). Accordingly, inflow migrants were more streamlined with longer caudal regions, traits known to improve swimming efficiency. There was no association between the geographic distance separating population pairs and the amount of gene flow they exchanged. Collectively, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that reduced gene flow between these brook charr populations results from divergent natural selection leading to interpopulation differences in migration. They also illustrate how phenotypic and genetic differentiation may arise over complex migratory life cycles.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".