Differential influences of local subpopulations on regional diversity and differentiation for greater sage‐grouse (<i>Centrocercus urophasianus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of spatial genetic variation across a region can shape evolutionary dynamics and impact population persistence. Local population dynamics and among-population dispersal rates are strong drivers of this spatial genetic variation, yet for many species we lack a clear understanding of how these population processes interact in space to shape within-species genetic variation. Here, we used extensive genetic and demographic data from 10 subpopulations of greater sage-grouse to parameterize a simulated approximate Bayesian computation (ABC) model and (i) test for regional differences in population density and dispersal rates for greater sage-grouse subpopulations in Wyoming, and (ii) quantify how these differences impact subpopulation regional influence on genetic variation. We found a close match between observed and simulated data under our parameterized model and strong variation in density and dispersal rates across Wyoming. Sensitivity analyses suggested that changes in dispersal (via landscape resistance) had a greater influence on regional differentiation, whereas changes in density had a greater influence on mean diversity across all subpopulations. Local subpopulations, however, varied in their regional influence on genetic variation. Decreases in the size and dispersal rates of central populations with low overall and net immigration (i.e. population sources) had the greatest negative impact on genetic variation. Overall, our results provide insight into the interactions among demography, dispersal and genetic variation and highlight the potential of ABC to disentangle the complexity of regional population dynamics and project the genetic impact of changing conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".