ISOLATION BY DISTANCE IN THE ATLANTIC COD, GADUS MORHUA, AT LARGE AND SMALL GEOGRAPHIC SCALES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic isolation by distance (IBD) has rarely been described in marine species with high potential for dispersal at both the larval and adult life-history stages. Here, we report significant relationships between inferred levels of gene flow and geographic distance in the Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, at 10 nuclear restriction-fragment-length-polymorphism (RFLP) loci at small regional scales in the western north Atlantic region (< 1,600 km) that mirror those previously detected over its entire geographic range (up to 7,300 km). Highly significant allele frequency differences were observed among eight northwestern Atlantic populations, although the mean FST for all 10 loci was only 0.014. Despite this weak population structuring, the distance separating populations explained between 54% and 62% of the variation in gene flow depending on whether nine or 10 loci were used to estimate Nm. Across the species' entire geographic range, highly significant differences were observed among six regional populations at nine of the 10 loci (mean FST = 0.068) and seven loci exhibited significant negative relationships between gene flow and distance. At this large geographic scale, natural selection acting in the vicinity of one RFLP locus (GM798) had a significant effect on the correlation between gene flow and distance, and eliminating it from the analysis caused the coefficient of determination to increase from 17% to 62%. The role of vicariance was assessed by sequentially removing populations from the analysis and was found to play a minor role in contributing to the relationship between gene flow and distance at either geographic scale. The correlation between gene flow and distance detected in G. morhua at small and large spatial scales suggests that dispersal distances and effective population sizes are much smaller than predicted for the species and that the recent age of populations, rather than extensive gene flow, may be responsible for its weak population structure. Our results suggest that interpreting limited genetic differences among populations as reflecting high levels of ongoing gene flow should be made with caution.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".