Data from: Assessing models of speciation under different biogeographic scenarios; an empirical study using multi-locus and RNA-seq analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary biology often seeks to decipher the drivers of speciation, and much debate persists over the relative importance of isolation and gene flow in the formation of new species. Genetic studies of closely related species can assess if gene flow was present during speciation, because signatures of past introgression often persist in the genome. We test hypotheses on which mechanisms of speciation drove diversity among three distinct lineages of desert tortoise in the genus Gopherus. These lineages offer a powerful system to study speciation, because different biogeographic patterns (physical vs. ecological segregation) are observed at opposing ends of their distributions. We use 82 samples collected from 38 sites, representing the entire species' distribution and generate sequence data for mtDNA and four nuclear loci. A multilocus phylogenetic analysis in *BEAST estimates the species tree. RNA-seq data yield 20,126 synonymous variants from 7665 contigs from two individuals of each of the three lineages. Analyses of these data using the demographic inference package ∂a∂i serve to test the null hypothesis of no gene flow during divergence. The best-fit demographic model for the three taxa is concordant with the *BEAST species tree, and the ∂a∂i analysis does not indicate gene flow among any of the three lineages during their divergence. These analyses suggest that divergence among the lineages occurred in the absence of gene flow and in this scenario the genetic signature of ecological isolation (parapatric model) cannot be differentiated from geographic isolation (allopatric model).
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".