BURROWING OWL (ATHENE CUNICULARIA) POPULATION GENETICS: A COMPARISON OF NORTH AMERICAN FORMS AND MIGRATORY HABITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the effects of range disjunction, migratory habit, coloniality, and habitat structure on the genetic differentiation of North American Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) populations. Burrowing Owls in North America comprise two forms or subspecies: A. c. floridana in Florida, separated by ∼1,500 km from the western form, A. c. hypugaea, which ranges from Texas to California and north to southern Canada. Burrowing Owls tend to be loosely colonial, and both the Florida populations and southerly populations of A. c. hypugaea from California to Texas are nonmigratory. To assess genetic structure, we examined 201 individuals from nine western and six Florida populations at seven highly variable microsatellite DNA loci. Mean gene diversity (Hexp) was higher in the west than in Florida (0.539 and 0.341, respectively; P < 0.05). Populations within subspecies were essentially panmictic (A. c. floridana: θ = 0.038, ρ = 0.014; A. c. hypugaea: θ = 0.014, ρ = 0.009) and even genetic differentiation across subspecies was modest (θ = 0.051, ρ = 0.014). Nevertheless, the western and Florida forms were easily distinguished by any of several criteria, such as allelic absences in Florida, assignment tests, and well-supported branches on the inferred phylogenetic tree. Genetic differentiation was at least twice as great in resident Florida (θ = 0.038) and California (θ = 0.021) populations as in migratory western populations (θ = 0.012), though 95% confidence intervals of theta estimates overlapped. We found no evidence of a genetic bottleneck that would result in evolutionary disequilibrium within subspecies. In the west, high observed heterozygosity values and evidence of gene flow suggest that population declines and patchy habitat, which currently imperil this species throughout much of its range, have not led to inbreeding or biologically meaningful genetic differentiation among the sampled populations.
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".