Clones or clans: the genetic structure of a deep‐sea sponge,<i>Aphrocallistes vastus,</i>in unique sponge reefs of British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding patterns of reproduction, dispersal and recruitment in deep‐sea communities is increasingly important with the need to manage resource extraction and conserve species diversity. Glass sponges are usually found in deep water (>1000 m) worldwide but form kilometre‐long reefs on the continental shelf of British Columbia and Alaska that are under threat from trawling and resource exploration. Due to their deep‐water habitat, larvae have not yet been found and the level of genetic connectivity between reefs and nonreef communities is unknown. The genetic structure ofAphrocallistes vastus, the primary reef‐building species in the Strait of Georgia (SoG) British Columbia, was studied using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Pairwise comparisons of multilocus genotypes were used to assess whether sexual reproduction is common. Structure was examined 1) between individuals in reefs, 2) between reefs and 3) between sites in and outside the SoG. Sixty‐sevenSNPs were genotyped in 91 samples from areas in and around the SoG, including four sponge reefs and nearby nonreef sites. The results show that sponge reefs are formed through sexual reproduction. Within a reef and across the SoG basin, the genetic distance between individuals does not vary with geographic distance (r = −0.005 to 0.014), but populations within the SoG basin are genetically distinct from populations in Barkley Sound, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Population structure was seen across all sample sites (globalFST = 0.248), especially between SoG and non‐SoG locations (average pairwiseFST = 0.251). Our results suggest that genetic mixing occurs across sponge reefs via larvae that disperse widely.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".