Species‐specific responses to landscape features shaped genomic structure within Alaska galliformes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Connectivity is vital to the resiliency of populations to environmental change and stochastic events, especially for cold‐adapted species as Arctic and alpine tundra habitats retract as the climate warms. We examined the influence of past and current landscapes on genomic connectivity in cold‐adapted galliformes as a critical first step to assess the vulnerability of Alaska ptarmigan and grouse to environmental change. We hypothesize that the mosaic of physical features and habitat within Alaska promoted the formation of genetic structure across species. Location Alaska, United States of America. Taxa Ptarmigan and Grouse (Galliformes: Tetraoninae). Methods We collected double digest restriction‐site‐associated DNA sequence data from six ptarmigan and grouse species ( N = 13–145/species) sampled across multiple ecosystems up to ~10 degrees of latitude. Spatial genomic structure was analysed using methods that reflect different temporal scales: (1) principal components analysis to identify major trends in the distribution of genomic variation; (2) maximum likelihood clustering analyses to test for the presence of multiple genomic groupings; (3) shared co‐ancestry analyses to assess contemporary relationships and (4) effective migration surfaces to identify regions that deviate from a null model of isolation by distance. Results Levels of genomic structure varied across species (Φ ST =0.009–0.042). Three general patterns of structure emerged: (1) east‐west partition located near the Yukon‐Tanana uplands; (2) north‐south split coinciding with the Alaska Range and (3) northern group near the Brooks Range. Species‐specific patterns were observed; not all landscape features were barriers to gene flow for all ptarmigan and grouse and temporal contrasts were detected at the Brooks Range. Main conclusions Within Alaska galliformes, patterns of genomic structure coincide with physiographic features and highlight the importance of physical and ecological barriers in shaping how genomic diversity is arrayed across the landscape. Lack of concordance in spatial patterns indicates that species behaviour and habitat affinities play key roles in driving the contrasting patterns of genomic structure.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".