Coast to coast: High genomic connectivity in North American scoters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Dispersal shapes demographic processes and therefore is fundamental to understanding biological, ecological, and evolutionary processes acting within populations. However, assessing population connectivity in scoters (Melanittasp.) is challenging as these species have large spatial distributions that span remote landscapes, have varying nesting distributions (disjunct vs. continuous), exhibit unknown levels of dispersal, and vary in the timing of the formation of pair bonds (winter vs. fall/spring migration) that may influence the distribution of genetic diversity. Here, we used double‐digest restriction‐associated DNA sequence (ddRAD) and microsatellite genotype data to assess population structure within the three North American species of scoter (black scoter,M. americana; white‐winged scoter,M. deglandi; surf scoter,M. perspicillata), and between their European congeners (common scoter,M. nigra; velvet scoter,M. fusca). We uncovered no or weak genomic structure (ddRADΦST < 0.019; microsatelliteFST < 0.004) within North America but high levels of structure among European congeners (ddRADΦST > 0.155, microsatelliteFST > 0.086). The pattern of limited genomic structure within North America is shared with other sea duck species and is often attributed to male‐biased dispersal. Further, migratory tendencies (east vs. west) of female surf and white‐winged scoters in central Canada are known to vary across years, providing additional opportunities for intracontinental dispersal and a mechanism for the maintenance of genomic connectivity across North America. In contrast, the black scoter had relatively elevated levels of divergence between Alaska and Atlantic sites and a second genetic cluster found in Alaska at ddRAD loci was concordant with its disjunct breeding distribution suggestive of a dispersal barrier (behavioral or physical). Although scoter populations appear to be connected through a dispersal network, a small percentage (<4%) of ddRAD loci had elevated divergence which may be useful in linking areas (nesting, molting, staging, and wintering) throughout the annual cycle.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".