Complex Origins and History of the Relict Fennoscandian Ringed Seals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatiotemporal environmental heterogeneity is a major evolutionary driver, which can cause profound phylogeographic complexity, particularly at the periphery of species ranges. Ringed seals display a highly disjoint distribution, occurring in high abundance throughout the circumpolar Arctic, as well as in the Baltic Sea, Lake Saimaa and Lake Ladoga. These relict Fennoscandian ringed seals were traditionally regarded as originating from a single colonisation event after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), but recent studies have challenged this perception. Here, we analyse 246 mitogenomes and 180 skulls to unravel the diversity and spatiotemporal pattern of diversification in Fennoscandian ringed seals. Contrary to previous assumptions, our results reveal a complex evolutionary history characterised by pre-LGM diversification from Arctic ringed seals and possibly several Fennoscandian colonisation events. We hypothesise that Saimaa seals originate from Arctic ringed seals, from which they diverged prior to their arrival in Lake Saimaa. Ladoga seals appear to also originate from the Arctic, with secondary colonisation events from paleo-Skagerrak-Kattegat-Baltic, while the Baltic ringed seals have mixed evolutionary origins. Lake Saimaa and, to some extent, Lake Ladoga ringed seals have experienced a loss of diversity and evolved divergent skull morphologies, likely as a result of colonisation bottlenecks, isolation and dietary specialisation, while Baltic Sea ringed seals have retained remarkably high levels of genetic and morphological diversity. Our study supports the classification of Saimaa, Ladoga and Baltic ringed seals as distinct taxa and highlights the need for management and conservation efforts to mitigate cumulative impacts of human activities and climate change on Fennoscandian ringed seals.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".