Do habitat use and parasitism lead to reinforcement in a flying squirrel hybrid zone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Northern and southern flying squirrels are sympatric in Ontario due to climate change. In this area of range overlap hybridization occurs. I investigated potential species barriers in this recent hybrid zone. First I examined whether divergence in microhabitat use through time would lead to reinforcement of reproductive isolation. I found microhabitat variables to be weak predictors of trap-level species presence and found no evidence of divergence between species over 18 years. I also found latitude to be the strongest predictor of species occurrence across sites. Second, I tested whether parasite-mediated competition via the parasite, Strongyloides robustus, could maintain species barriers. I found a weak negative effect of S. robustus on northern flying squirrels, but I found a low parasite prevalence in southern flying squirrels compared to northern flying squirrels. Further, I found no evidence that presence of S. robustus would lead to competitive exclusion of northern flying squirrels from woodlots through apparent competition with southern flying squirrels. Therefore, divergence in microhabitat use and parasite-mediated competition do not appear to contribute to reproductive isolation of flying squirrels in Ontario.
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 | 0.000 | 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".