MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742206623 · doi:10.1111/mec.14291

Social and spatial effects on genetic variation between foraging flocks in a wild bird population

2017· article· en· W2742206623 on OpenAlexaff
Reinder Radersma, Anna W. Santure, Isabelle De Cauwer, Damien R. Farine, Jon Slate, Ben C. Sheldon

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsHomophilyBiologyEvolutionary biologyPopulationForagingGeneticsGenetic structureAllele frequencyGenetic variationAlleleEcologySocial psychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social interactions are rarely random. In some instances, animals exhibit homophily or heterophily, the tendency to interact with similar or dissimilar conspecifics, respectively. Genetic homophily and heterophily influence the evolutionary dynamics of populations, because they potentially affect sexual and social selection. Here, we investigate the link between social interactions and allele frequencies in foraging flocks of great tits (Parus major) over three consecutive years. We constructed co-occurrence networks which explicitly described the splitting and merging of 85,602 flocks through time (fission-fusion dynamics), at 60 feeding sites. Of the 1,711 birds in those flocks, we genotyped 962 individuals at 4,701 autosomal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). By combining genomewide genotyping with repeated field observations of the same individuals, we were able to investigate links between social structure and allele frequencies at a much finer scale than was previously possible. We explicitly accounted for potential spatial effects underlying genetic structure at the population level. We modelled social structure and spatial configuration of great tit fission-fusion dynamics with eigenvector maps. Variance partitioning revealed that allele frequencies were strongly affected by group fidelity (explaining 27%-45% of variance) as individuals tended to maintain associations with the same conspecifics. These conspecifics were genetically more dissimilar than expected, shown by genomewide heterophily for pure social (i.e., space-independent) grouping preferences. Genomewide homophily was linked to spatial configuration, indicating spatial segregation of genotypes. We did not find evidence for homophily or heterophily for putative socially relevant candidate genes or any other SNP markers. Together, these results demonstrate the importance of distinguishing social and spatial processes in determining population structure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207