MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410461217 · doi:10.1101/2025.05.13.653790

Elephants inhabiting two forested sites in western Uganda exhibit contrasting patterns of species identity, density, and history of hybridization

2025· preprint· en· W4410461217 on OpenAlexaff
Claire K. Goodfellow, Daniella E. Chusyd, Dennis Babaasa, Colin A. Chapman, Jena R. Hickey, Mireille Johnson, Charles Kayijamahe, Richard Mutegeki, Patrick A. Omeja, Charles Tumwesigye, Eustrate Uzabaho, Samuel K. Wasser, Michael D. Wasserman, Caitlin P. Wells, Nelson Ting

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
FundersNational Geographic Society
KeywordsIdentity (music)GeographyEcologyBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Elephant populations across much of Africa face severe rates of decline due to poaching and habitat loss. The recent decision by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to separately list African forest ( Loxodonta cyclotis ) and savanna ( L. africana ) elephants on the IUCN Red List both highlights the different threats of extinction faced by these two species and emphasizes the need for genetic data to classify taxonomically undefined populations across the continent. This includes western Uganda – a region that harbors the largest known modern hybrid zone between the two species. We combined a new high-throughput amplicon sequencing (HTAS) approach with fecal DNA-based Capture Mark Recapture (CMR) analysis to infer the population sizes and species compositions of elephants living in two forests. We demonstrate that Kibale National Park hosts a relatively large elephant population (573 individuals, 95% CI: 410 to 916; 0.72 elephants/km 2 ) composed primarily of hybrids (81.5%) and savanna elephants (17.7%), while Bwindi Impenetrable National Park hosts a smaller population (96 individuals, 95% CI: 64 to 145; 0.29 elephants/km 2 ) composed of forest elephants (86.8%) and hybrids (13.2%). We then sequenced maternally inherited (mtDNA) and paternally inherited (AMELY) genetic markers and found that the two parks’ populations exhibit different patterns of sex-linked genetic variation. The contrasting patterns of species identity and genetic variation between these parks demonstrate different histories of hybridization and highlight the importance of site-specific monitoring where elephants are taxonomically undefined.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→