Selection of both habitat and genes in specialized and endangered caribou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic mechanisms determining habitat selection and specialization of individuals within species have been hypothesized, but not tested at the appropriate individual level in nature. In this work, we analyzed habitat selection for 139 GPS-collared caribou belonging to three declining ecotypes sampled throughout Northwestern Canada. We used Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) comparing resources at used and available locations. We found that the three caribou ecotypes differed in their use of habitat suggesting specialization. On expected grounds, we also found differences in habitat selection between summer and winter, but also, originally, among the individuals within an ecotype. We next obtained Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) for the same caribou individuals, we detected those associated to habitat selection, and then identified genes linked to these SNPs. These genes had functions related in other organisms to habitat and dietary specializations, and climatic adaptations. We therefore suggest that individual variation in habitat selection was based on genotypic variation in the SNPs of individual caribou, indicating that genetic forces underlie habitat and diet selection in the species. We also suggest that the associations between habitat and genes that we detected may lead to lack of resilience in the species, thus contributing to caribou endangerment. Our work emphasizes that similar mechanisms may exist for other specialized, endangered species. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.000 | 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".