Multiplex PCR reveals population structure in an inbred communal bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We sampled communally breeding pūkeko ( Porphyrio melanotus melanotus , family Rallidae) populations on the North (Tāwharanui Park) and South (Otokia Reserve) Islands of New Zealand that differ in climate and ecology. North Island populations have year-round territories, philopatry, and form kin groups, resulting in inbreeding. South Island populations have seasonal territories, high dispersal rates, and form non-kin groups, leading to outbreeding. Given behavioural evidence of inbreeding we predicted that the North Island population would exhibit lower heterozygosity and higher inbreeding coefficients than the South Island population. We hypothesized that the South Island population originated via a range expansion from the north and predicted that South Island birds would have lower allelic diversity due to founder effects. To test these predictions, we developed microsatellite primers, optimized multiplex PCRs, and genotyped breeding groups from the North and South Island. Breeding groups from North Island were genetically differentiated, whereas population structure was not detected in the South Island birds. North Island birds had higher inbreeding coefficients and levels of within group kinship, but not allelic diversity, compared to South Island birds. Our results are thus inconclusive about whether the South Island population originated via a range expansion from the north. This pilot study validated microsatellite markers and PCR methods and is the first genetic analysis of population structure and relatedness within communal breeding pūkeko groups. These genetic tools will be used for larger-scale studies to help resolve the origins of the South Island population and provide further insights into the effects of ecology and behaviour on inbreeding, reproductive success, and population demographics in this species. Pūkeko may provide an excellent model for experimental analyses of inbreeding effects on wild avian populations without the attendant concerns that come with small, endangered populations. This work may thus inform conservation efforts, including translocations of endangered 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".