Habitat‐linked genetic structure for white‐crowned sparrow (<i>Zonotrichia leucophrys</i>): Local factors shape population genetic structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ecological, environmental, and geographic factors all influence genetic structure. Species with broad distributions are ideal systems because they cover a range of ecological and environmental conditions allowing us to test which components predict genetic structure. This study presents a novel, broad geographic approach using molecular markers, morphology, and habitat modeling to investigate rangewide and local barriers causing contemporary genetic differentiation within the geographical range of three white‐crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) subspecies: Z. l. gambelii, Z. l. oriantha, and Z. l. pugetensis. Three types of genetic markers showed geographic distance between sampling sites, elevation, and ecosystem type are key factors contributing to population genetic structure. Microsatellite markers revealed white‐crowned sparrows do not group by subspecies, but instead indicated four groupings at a rangewide scale and two groupings based on coniferous and deciduous ecosystems at a local scale. Our analyses of morphological variation also revealed habitat differences; sparrows from deciduous ecosystems are larger than individuals from coniferous ecosystems based on principal component analyses. Habitat modeling showed isolation by distance was prevalent in describing genetic structure, but isolation by resistance also had a small but significant influence. Not only do these findings have implications concerning the accuracy of subspecies delineations, they also highlight the critical role of local factors such as habitat in shaping contemporary population genetic structure of species with high dispersal ability.
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 | 0.000 | 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".