Speciation and population differentiation in yellow-nosed albatrosses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The two species of yellow-nosed albatross, Atlantic (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) and Indian (Thalassarche carteri), are morphologically similar, however, they show some differences in behaviour and breeding range. We studied genetic variation within and among the two species using nuclear (microsatellite, Pema7 and Occa9) and mitochondrial (control region) markers. We analysed 201 samples of Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross from Nightingale, Inaccessible and Gough Islands and 33 samples of Indian yellow-nosed albatross from Amsterdam Island. Both sets of markers differentiated the two species. Microsatellite and Occa9 nuclear markers revealed two genetically distinct groups within Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, grouping birds from Nightingale and Inaccessible Islands together and separating birds from Gough Island. Differences in at-sea distribution might have resulted in genetic differentiation within Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross, but there is no evidence currently of such differences. Both species are listed as endangered due to their limited number of breeding sites and threats from introduced diseases, introduced predators and fishing mortality. Our results contribute to conservation and management plans for the two species, and suggest the need for separate management of the two genetically distinct groups of Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross breeding at the Tristan group (80%) and Gough Island (20%). Key words: yellow-nosed albatross, genetic variation, microsatellite, nuclear marker Authors: Dilini Abeyrama¹, Zach Dempsey¹, Peter Ryan², Theresa Burg¹ ¹University of Lethbridge, ²FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".