Habitat selection predicts genetic relatedness in an alpine ungulate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscape heterogeneity plays an integral role in shaping ecological and evolutionary processes. Despite links between the two disciplines, ecologists and population geneticists have taken different approaches to evaluating habitat selection, animal movement, and gene flow across the landscape. Ecologists commonly use statistical models such as resource selection functions (RSFs) to identify habitat features disproportionately selected by animals, whereas population genetic approaches model genetic differentiation according to the distribution of habitat variables. We combined ecological and genetic approaches by using RSFs to predict genetic relatedness across a heterogeneous landscape. We constructed sex- and season-specific resistance surfaces based on RSFs estimated using data from 102 GPS (global positioning system) radio-collared mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) in southeast Alaska, USA. Based on mountain goat ecology, we hypothesized that summer and male surfaces would be the best predictors of relatedness. All individuals were genotyped at 22 microsatellite loci, which we used to estimate genetic relatedness. Summer resistance surfaces derived from RSFs were the best predictors of genetic relatedness, and winter models the poorest. Mountain goats generally selected for areas close to escape terrain and with a high heat load (a metric related to vegetative productivity and snow depth), while avoiding valleys. Male- and female-specific surfaces were similar, except for winter, for which male habitat selection better predicted genetic relatedness. The null models of isolation-by-distance and barrier only outperformed the winter models. This study merges high-resolution individual locations through GPS telemetry and genetic data, that can be used to validate and parameterize landscape genetics models, and further elucidates the relationship between landscape heterogeneity and genetic differentiation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".