Pronounced Genetic Structure Associated With Differences in a Reproductive Trait and Climatic Barriers in Canadian Populations of the Western Toad ( <i>Anaxyrus boreas</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aim Identifying genetic groups within species' ranges is critical for inventorying diversity and delineating conservation units. For many North American amphibians, limited knowledge of genetic structure in Canada constrains effective conservation decision‐making. The western toad ( Anaxyrus boreas ) has an extensive distribution in western North America and, with a large part of its range in Canada, represents an opportunity to fill gaps in our understanding of genetic structure in this part of the country. Curiously, toads to the east of the Canadian Rocky Mountains (CRMs) have a vocal sac and produce a distinct advertisement call, whereas toads to the west of the CRMs and in southern parts of the species' range lack these traits. We aimed to evaluate genetic structure across the Canadian range of western toads to determine whether these ‘Calling’ and ‘Non‐calling’ populations are genetically distinct. Location British Columbia and Alberta, corresponding to east–west coverage of the Canadian range of western toads. Methods We genotyped individuals using reduced representation sequencing (ddRAD‐seq) and used population genomic methods to quantify genetic structure. We examined spatial agreement between observed genetic groups and the distribution of calling and non‐calling individuals based on the original phenotypic data used to describe these groups. Finally, we used ecological niche models to explore differences in climatic space occupied by each population and test whether climate barriers may play a role in shaping genetic boundaries. Main‐Conclusions Our results show that Calling and Non‐Calling populations of western toads in Canada not only differ in key reproductive traits, but represent distinct genetic groups separated by an area of low climatic suitability. We additionally find support for a third, undescribed genetic group in the southern CRMs. These results contribute to our understanding of genetic structure in Canada and highlight the potential for additional, overlooked groups within the northern parts of species' ranges.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".