Corridor‐based approach with spatial cross‐validation reveals scale‐dependent effects of geographic distance, human footprint and canopy cover on grizzly bear genetic connectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how human infrastructure and other landscape attributes affect genetic differentiation in animals is an important step for identifying and maintaining dispersal corridors for these species. We built upon recent advances in the field of landscape genetics by using an individual‐based and multiscale approach to predict landscape‐level genetic connectivity for grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) across ~100,000 km2 in Canada's southern Rocky Mountains. We used a genetic dataset with 1156 unique individuals genotyped at nine microsatellite loci to identify landscape characteristics that influence grizzly bear gene flow at multiple spatial scales and map predicted genetic connectivity through a matrix of rugged terrain, large protected areas, highways and a growing human footprint. Our corridor‐based modelling approach used a machine learning algorithm that objectively parameterized landscape resistance, incorporated spatial cross validation and variable selection and explicitly accounted for isolation by distance. This approach avoided overfitting, discarded variables that did not improve model performance across withheld test datasets and spatial predictive capacity compared to random cross‐validation. We found that across all spatial scales, geographic distance explained more variation in genetic differentiation in grizzly bears than landscape variables. Human footprint inhibited connectivity across all spatial scales, while open canopies inhibited connectivity at the broadest spatial scale. Our results highlight the negative effect of human footprint on genetic connectivity, provide strong evidence for using spatial cross‐validation in landscape genetics analyses and show that multiscale analyses provide additional information on how landscape variables affect genetic differentiation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".