No evidence for hybridization between <scp><i>Calanus finmarchicus</i></scp> and <scp><i>Calanus glacialis</i></scp> in a subarctic area of sympatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean, four species of the copepod genus Calanus dominate the zooplankton biomass. Because of their morphological resemblance, knowledge of their respective distribution range has long been biased by misidentification, until the recent use of molecular tools uncovered numerous areas of sympatry. As hybridization between Calanus finmarchicus and Calanus glacialis has been claimed in the East‐Canadian Arctic based on microsatellites, we investigated further the potential for interbreeding in newly uncovered areas of sympatry. Calanus species and stage composition were analyzed during winter in two Norwegian subarctic fjords, using molecular markers developed specifically for species identification and hybrid detection between C. finmarchicus and C. glacialis. Overall, C. glacialis were the most abundant throughout the winter, followed by C. finmarchicus and Calanus hyperboreus with only a few records of Calanus helgolandicus. The presence of C. glacialis, C. hyperboreus, and C. finmarchicus' nauplii was recorded, indicating that these species reproduce locally. In January and February, the simultaneous occurrence of males and females of both C. finmarchicus and C. glacialis suggested a potential for interspecies mating. However, genetic admixture tests performed on all 1126 individuals revealed no signal of hybridization, implying a strong reproductive isolation mechanism. We conclude that no evidence supports a potential for hybridization between C. finmarchicus and C. glacialis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".