Influence of environmental conditions at spawning sites and migration routes on adaptive variation and population connectivity in Chinook salmon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many species that undergo long breeding migrations, such as anadromous fishes, face highly heterogeneous environments along their migration corridors and at their spawning sites. These environmental challenges encountered at different life stages may act as strong selective pressures and drive local adaptation. However, the relative influence of environmental conditions along the migration corridor compared with the conditions at spawning sites on driving selection is still unknown. In this study, we performed genome–environment associations (GEA) to understand the relationship between landscape and environmental conditions driving selection in seven populations of the anadromous Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha )—a species of important economic, social, cultural, and ecological value—in the Columbia River basin. We extracted environmental variables for the shared migration corridors and at distinct spawning sites for each population, and used a Pool‐seq approach to perform whole genome resequencing. Bayesian and univariate GEA tests with migration‐specific and spawning site‐specific environmental variables indicated many more candidate SNPs associated with environmental conditions at the migration corridor compared with spawning sites. Specifically, temperature, precipitation, terrain roughness, and elevation variables of the migration corridor were the most significant drivers of environmental selection. Additional analyses of neutral loci revealed two distinct clusters representing populations from different geographic regions of the drainage that also exhibit differences in adult migration timing (summer vs. fall). Tests for genomic regions under selection revealed a strong peak on chromosome 28, corresponding to the GREB1L/ROCK1 region that has been identified previously in salmonids as a region associated with adult migration timing. Our results show that environmental variation experienced throughout migration corridors imposed a greater selective pressure on Chinook salmon than environmental conditions at spawning sites.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".