MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative phylogeography, genetic differentiation and contrasting reproductive modes in three fungal symbionts of a multipartite bark beetle symbiosis

2010· article· en· W2156831884 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amanda D. Roe, Adrianne V. Rice, David W. Coltman, Janice E. K. Cooke, Felix A. H. Sperling

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogeographyEvolutionary biologyPopulationInterspecific competitionEcologySymbiosisPopulation geneticsLineage (genetic)Species complexPhylogenetic treeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multipartite symbioses are complex symbiotic relationships involving multiple interacting partners. These types of partnerships provide excellent opportunities in which to apply a comparative approach to identify common historical patterns of population differentiation and species-specific life history traits. Using three symbiotic blue-stain fungal species (Ophiostomatacea) associated with outbreaking populations of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) in western Canada, we applied phylogenetic, population genetic and demographic approaches to clarify phylogeographic patterns among the three fungal species. Broadly, the three species showed significant population differentiation, forming northern and southern populations, despite dramatic differences in haplotype diversity. Finer structuring and population demographic patterns were less consistent, showing some interspecific incongruence. By contrasting these species simultaneously, we were able to identify differences in recombination rate and ecological traits that can explain the observed patterns of incongruence among the fungal species. By applying a comparative approach to partners of a multipartite symbiosis, we were able to distinguish congruent population structuring and species-specific differences that help us to understand the complexity and evolution of this symbiotic system.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations50
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207