Habitat use and hybridisation between the Rocky Mountain sculpin (<i>Cottus</i>sp.) and slimy sculpin (<i>Cottus cognatus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Anthropogenic factors such as land‐use change, pollution, and climate change can cause fragmentation and reduce the amount of habitat by altering preferred conditions. This process can also bring about novel species interactions and, in some cases, create or alter levels of hybridisation between closely related species. We assessed the threat of hybridisation to the persistence of the Rocky Mountain sculpin (Cottussp.) and the slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus) in the Flathead River, British Columbia, Canada. Individuals collected from 95 sites provided 731 genetic samples that were genotyped at 10 polymorphic microsatellite loci and mitochondrial cytochrome C oxidase sequences, to assess: (a) if there are differences in the distribution of Rocky Mountain sculpin between contemporary and historical (35 years ago) records, (b) if hybridisation is symmetrical in terms of sex‐specific parental contributions, and (c) if habitat preferences contribute to the distribution of pure parental and hybrid populations. We identified three hybrid locations and that Rocky Mountain sculpin have an altitudinal distribution (1,200–1,902 m) that exceeds the range limit reported 35 years ago (1,200–1,372 m). Additionally, hybrid mating appears to involve similar proportions of parents of both sexes from each species. Lastly, elevation, turbidity, and sediment type are significant factors predicting the presence of parental species. Further, elevation and water conductivity are significant factors to predicting hybrid presence. The contrasting associations of parental species with different habitat types appear to influence the extent and distribution of hybridisation. Our results suggest that Rocky Mountain sculpin (a species of conservation concern) do not appear to be at risk due to hybridisation, but that this is a system in flux. Given the importance of environmental conditions to hybridisation, there is a need to quantify how environmental changes may disrupt current hybridisation and potential population viability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".