MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042286909

Phylogeography and Population Structure of the Prairie Skink (Eumeces Septentrionalis)

2003· article· en· W7042286909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogeographyPhylogenetic treeSkinkPopulationPhylogeneticsRange (aeronautics)Gene flow
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geographical and geneological limits of species are firmly rooted in historical and current processes. Phylogenetic studies focus on the historical aspect and examine character states to estimate ancestor-descendent relationships. The number of described species in the world has been estimated at 1.4 to 1.8 million and other estimates suggest that as many as 30 million species may exist (May, 1990; Wilson, 1992). Phylogenetic studies provide the information needed to delimit and classify these species based on their historical relationships. Studies on species population structure focus on the current and historical processes acting on a species. These studies use a variety of methods and estimate gene flow and allele frequencies across the species range. This thesis is composed of three chapters that examine the phylogeny and population structure of the prairie skink, Eumeces septentrionalis. Chapter 1 reviews some of the current methods available for examining population structure and justifies the methods used in this study. Chapter 2 examines the phylogenetic relationships within Eumeces septentrionalis using DMA sequence data from two portions of the mitochondrial genome. Specifically, populations from the northern subspecies, E. s. septentrionalis, are compared with the southern subspecies, E. s. obtusirostris. These data along with the phylogenetic species concept are then used to examine the placement of E. s. septentrionalis and E. s. obtusirostris as one or two distinct species. Chapter 3 focuses on the population structure of E. septentrionalis specifically with respect to the northern populations to examine the recolonization pattern following Pleistocene glaciation events. Two field seasons in the spring and summer of 2001 and 2002 were conducted for this study during which sixty-four tissue samples were collected from individuals in Canada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Kansas. ND4 (807 bp) and d-loop (~747 bp) regions of the mitochondrial genome (ND4 and d-loop) were sequenced from the collected samples, and these data were used in both phylogenetic and population structure analyses. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrated a substantial sequence divergence and reciprocal monophyly between the northern and southern subspecies of E. septentrionalis. Uncorrected pairwise distance values between the northern and southern subspecies ranged from 6.7 - 7.0%, and the monophyly of the northern and southern subspecies, E. s. septentrionalis and E. s. obtusirostris, were strongly supported by both maximum parsimony (bootstrap = 100) and maximum likelihood analyses. These results support the morphological differences found in previous studies and suggest that these two subspecies may be on separate evolutionary trajectories. The population structure of the prairie skink, E. septentrionalis, was examined using nested clade analyses, which revealed isolation by distance with restricted gene flow as the inferred geographical pattern for northern populations (E. s. septentrionalis). This pattern reflects the lack of overlapping haplotypes in distant populations and was found at both the haplotype and upper clade levels. These results indicate that E. septentrionalis was likely subject to one or more vicariant events, and subsequently several localities probably acted as refugia and source populations during times of glacial advance and retreat.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Same topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207