Data from: Comparative phylogeography, genetic differentiation, and contrasting reproductive modes in three fungal symbionts of a multipartite bark beetle symbiosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multipartite symbioses are complex symbiotic relationships involving multiple interacting partners. These types of partnerships provide excellent opportunities in which to apply a comparative approach to identify common historical patterns of population differentiation and species-specific life history traits. Using three symbiotic blue stain fungal species (Ophiostomatacea) associated with outbreaking populations of the mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) in western Canada, we applied phylogenetic, population genetic, and demographic approaches to clarify phylogeographic patterns among the three fungal species. Broadly, the three species showed significant population differentiation, forming northern and southern populations, despite dramatic differences in haplotype diversity. Finer scale structuring and population demographic patterns were less consistent, showing some interspecific incongruence. By contrasting these species simultaneously, we were able to identify differences in recombination rate and ecological traits that can explain the observed patterns of incongruence among the fungal species. By applying a comparative approach to partners of a multipartite symbiosis we were able to distinguish congruent population structuring and species-specific differences that help us to understand the complexity and evolution of this symbiotic system.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
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".