Hybridization and Asymmetrical Introgression Between the Vulnerable Gray‐Headed Chickadee and a More Abundant Congener, the Boreal Chickadee: Implications for Conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Hybridization is a common process among bird species that can precipitate a mix of positive or negative species outcomes. Particularly for rare populations, detrimental effects of hybridization on demographic growth rates and genetic integrity are of serious concern. In Alaska and a small region of northwestern Canada, the endemic subspecies of Gray‐headed Chickadee ( Poecile cinctus lathami ) has declined in recent decades from being locally common to being extremely rare. The more widespread Boreal Chickadee ( P. hudsonicus ) has become increasingly abundant in areas of sympatry. These changes in abundance may have led to hybridization between Gray‐headed Chickadees and Boreal Chickadees. We used a series of analyses to test for signatures of introgression at mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA using historical museum samples of both species collected between 1875 and 1979 as well as contemporary Boreal Chickadee samples. In addition, we modeled Gray‐headed Chickadee and Boreal Chickadee demographic histories to better understand patterns of effective population size changes and gene flow over time. Introgression of Gray‐headed Chickadee nuclear DNA was detected in contemporary and historical Boreal Chickadee populations, and two first‐generation hybrid backcrosses were observed in the historical Boreal Chickadee samples. Lack of mitochondrial DNA introgression or backcrossing into the Gray‐headed Chickadee historical samples may be an artifact of mate scarcity during the period before local abundances of Boreal Chickadee exceeded Gray‐headed Chickadees. Demographic modeling with nuclear loci estimated a low level of symmetric gene flow between Gray‐headed Chickadees and Boreal Chickadees since the time of divergence. Our study suggests that hybridization may be linked to Gray‐headed Chickadee declines and represents a case study of how museum collections can be used to infer introgression in a population too scarce to directly investigate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".