Microhabitat use of northern and southern flying squirrels in a recent hybrid zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Secondary contact of closely related species may lead to hybridization if reproductive isolation is incomplete. We examined the role of habitat use as a factor contributing to reproductive isolation of northern ( Glaucomys sabrinus (Shaw, 1801)) and southern ( Glaucomys volans (Linnaeus, 1758)) flying squirrels in an area of secondary contact in Ontario, Canada. Specifically, we looked at summer microhabitat use within sites of sympatry and allopatry to test for evidence of reinforcement due to diverging habitat use. We also examined differences in broad-scale habitat features at woodlots to determine predictors of species occurrence across sites. We used 18 years (2002–2019) of flying squirrel summer capture data from six sites along a north–south transect and microhabitat data from vegetation surveys conducted during summer 2016. We found microhabitat variables to be weak predictors of trap-level flying squirrel presence, and we found no evidence of divergence in microhabitat use over the 18 years. Further, we found latitude, not broad-scale habitat, was the strongest predictor of site-level flying squirrel occurrence. Overall, our findings suggest that microhabitat-based isolation is not being reinforced between flying squirrels; however, hybridization may be limited to areas where climate and habitat are suitable for both species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".