Quantifying the similarity between genes and geography across Alaska's alpine small mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Quantitatively evaluate the similarity of genomic variation and geography in five different alpine small mammals in Alaska, and use this quantitative assessment of concordance as a framework for refining hypotheses about the processes structuring population genetic variation in either a species‐specific or shared manner. Location Alaska and adjacent north‐western Canada. Methods For each taxon we generated 3500–7500 single‐nucleotide polymorphisms and applied a Procrustes analysis to find an optimal transformation that maximizes the similarity between principal components analysis maps of genetic variation and geographical maps of sample locations. We generate stability maps using projected distributions from ecological niche models of the Last Glacial Maximum and the present. Results Significant similarity between genes and geography exists across taxa. However, the extent to which geography is predictive of patterns of genetic variation not only differs among taxa, but the correspondence between genes and geography varies over space. Geographical areas where genetic structure aligns poorly with the geographical coordinates are of particular interest because they indicate regions where processes other than isolation by distance ( IBD ) have influenced genetic variation. The clustering of individuals according to their sample location does not support suppositions of admixture, despite the presumed high vagility of some species (e.g. arctic ground squirrels). Main conclusions Genomic data indicate a more nuanced biogeographical history for the taxa than suggested by previous studies based on mt DNA alone. These include departures from IBD that are shared among taxa, which suggest some shared processes structuring genetic variation, including new potential ancestral source populations. In addition, some regions fit expectations of IBD where incremental migration and gene flow play a strong role in population structure, despite any ecological difference among taxa. Differences in dispersal capabilities do not result in different species‐specific local patterns of population structure, at least at the sampling scale examined here. We highlight how the general fit to, as well as departures from, expectations for patterns of genetic variation based on the Procrustes analyses can be used to generate hypotheses about the underlying processes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".