Do phylogeny and habitat influence admixture among four North American chickadee (family: Paridae) species?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hybridization is an important aspect of speciation, yet questions remain about the ecological and environmental factors that influence hybridization among wild populations. We used microsatellite genotyping data and collected land cover and environmental data for four North American chickadee species: black‐capped Poecile atricapillus , mountain P. gambeli , chestnut‐backed P. rufescens and boreal P. hudsonicus chickadees. Combining these datasets, we sought to examine whether there is evidence of admixture between four widely distributed North American chickadee species; whether admixture takes place more often between more closely related species pairs or between species pairs with more similar ecological preferences; and whether certain habitat types have higher rates of admixture than others. We detected admixture for five of the six species pairs analyzed (chestnut‐backed–mountain chickadee pair showed no evidence of admixture), and found rates of admixture varied geographically, and within taxa pairs. Admixture was higher among less closely related species than more closely related species, although habitat similarity was not a significant predictor. Finally, rates of admixture were higher in urban parkland habitats than deciduous, mixed or coniferous forest habitats. Our work indicates admixture occurs frequently among North American parids, and habitat and environmental variation may play an important role in the frequency and geographic distribution of hybridization.
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".