Comparative analysis of landscape effects on spatial genetic structure of the big brown bat and one of its cimicid ectoparasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identification of landscape features that correlate with genetic structure permits understanding of factors that may influence gene flow in a species. Comparing effects of the landscape on a parasite and host provides potential insights into parasite‐host ecology. We compared fine‐scale spatial genetic structure between big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) and their cimicid ectoparasite (Cimex adjunctus; class Insecta) in the lower Great Lakes region of the United States, in an area of about 160,000 km2. We genotyped 142 big brown bat and 55 C. adjunctus samples at eight and seven microsatellite loci, respectively, and inferred effects of various types of land cover on the genetic structure of each species. We found significant associations between several land cover types and genetic distance in both species, although different land cover types were influential in each. Our results suggest that even in a parasite that is almost entirely reliant on its hosts for dispersal, land cover can affect gene flow differently than in the hosts, depending on key ecological aspects of both species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".