Genomic population structure and inbreeding history of Lake Superior caribou
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) have experienced dramatic declines in both range and population size across Canada over the past century. Boreal caribou (R. t. caribou), 1 of the 12 Designatable Units, has lost approximately half of its historic range in the last 150 years, particularly along the southern edge of its distribution. Despite this overall northward contraction, some populations have persisted at the trailing range edge, over 150 km south of the continuous boreal caribou range in Ontario, along the coast and nearshore islands of Lake Superior. The population history of caribou along Lake Superior remains unclear. It appears that these caribou likely represent a remnant distribution at the trailing edge of the receding population of boreal caribou, but they may also exhibit local adaptation to the coastal environment. A better understanding of the population structure and history of caribou along Lake Superior is important for their conservation and management. Here, we use high‐coverage whole genomes (N = 20) from boreal, eastern migratory, and barren‐ground caribou sampled in Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec to investigate population structure and inbreeding histories. We discovered that caribou from the Lake Superior range form a distinct group but also found some evidence of gene flow with the continuous boreal caribou range. Notably, caribou along Lake Superior demonstrated relatively high levels of inbreeding (measured as runs of homozygosity; ROH) and genetic drift, which may contribute to the differentiation observed between ranges. Despite inbreeding, caribou along Lake Superior retained high heterozygosity, particularly in genomic regions without ROH. These results suggest that they present distinct genomic characteristics but also some level of gene flow with the continuous range. Our study provides key insights into the genomics of the southernmost range of caribou in Ontario, beginning to unravel the evolutionary history of these small, isolated caribou populations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".