Temporal variation in spatial genetic structure during population outbreaks: Distinguishing among different potential drivers of spatial synchrony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial synchrony is a common characteristic of spatio‐temporal population dynamics across many taxa. While it is known that both dispersal and spatially autocorrelated environmental variation (i.e., the Moran effect) can synchronize populations, the relative contributions of each, and how they interact, are generally unknown. Distinguishing these mechanisms and their effects on synchrony can help us to better understand spatial population dynamics, design conservation and management strategies, and predict climate change impacts. Population genetic data can be used to tease apart these two processes as the spatio‐temporal genetic patterns they create are expected to be different. A challenge, however, is that genetic data are often collected at a single point in time, which may introduce context‐specific bias. Spatio‐temporal sampling strategies can be used to reduce bias and to improve our characterization of the drivers of spatial synchrony. Using spatio‐temporal analyses of genotypic data, our objective was to identify the relative support for these two mechanisms to the spatial synchrony in population dynamics of the irruptive forest insect pest, the spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana), in Quebec (Canada). AMOVA, cluster analysis, isolation by distance, and sPCA were used to characterize spatio‐temporal genomic variation using 1,370 SBW larvae sampled over four years (2012–2015) and genotyped at 3,562 SNP loci. We found evidence of overall weak spatial genetic structure that decreased from 2012 to 2015 and a genetic diversity homogenization among the sites. We also found genetic evidence of a long‐distance dispersal event over >140 km. These results indicate that dispersal is the key mechanism involved in driving population synchrony of the outbreak. Early intervention management strategies that aim to control source populations have the potential to be effective through limiting dispersal. However, the timing of such interventions relative to outbreak progression is likely to influence their probability of success.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".