Population Genetics of Brook Trout in the Southern Appalachian Mountains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Broad‐scale patterns of genetic diversity for Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis remain poorly understood across their endemic range in the eastern United States. We characterized variation at 12 microsatellite loci in 22,020 Brook Trout among 836 populations from Georgia, USA, to Quebec, Canada, to the western Great Lakes region. Within‐population diversity was typically lower in the southern Appalachian Mountains relative to the mid‐Atlantic and northeastern regions. Effective population sizes in the southern Appalachians were often very small, with many estimates less than 30 individuals. The population genetics of Brook Trout in the southern Appalachians are far more complex than a conventionally held simple “northern” versus “southern” dichotomy would suggest. Contemporary population genetic variation was consistent with geographic expansion of Brook Trout from Mississippian, mid‐Atlantic, and Acadian glacial refugia as well as differentiation among drainages within these broader clades. Genetic variation was pronounced among drainages (57.4% of overall variation occurred among 10‐digit hydrologic unit code [HUC10] units or larger units) but was considerable even at fine spatial scales (13% of variation occurred among collections within HUC12 drainage units). Remarkably, 87.2% of individuals were correctly assigned to their collection of origin. While comparisons with fish from existing major hatcheries showed impacts of stocking in some populations, genetic introgression did not overwhelm the signal of broad‐scale patterns of population genetic structure. Although our results reveal deep genetic structure in Brook Trout over broad spatial extents, fine‐scale population structuring is prevalent across the southern Appalachians. Our findings highlight the distinctiveness and vulnerability of many Brook Trout populations in the southern Appalachians and have important implications for wild Brook Trout management. To facilitate application of our findings by conservation practitioners, we provide an interactive online visualization tool to allow our results to be explored at management‐relevant scales.
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) | 0.000 | 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".