Mitochondrial phylogeography, subspecific taxonomy, and conservation genetics of sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis; Aves: Gruidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six subspecies of sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) have been denoted based on perceived morphological and/or breeding locality differences among them. Three subspecies are migratory, breeding from the high arctic in North America and Siberia (lesser sandhill, G. c. canadensis), south through central Canada (Canadian sandhill, G. c. rowani) and into the northern United States (greater sandhill, G. c. tabida). A review of sandhill crane taxonomy indicates that the size variation, on the basis of which these subspecies were named, may be clinal and not diagnostic. The other three subspecies, all listed as endangered or threatened, are non-migratory, resident in Florida (G. c. pratensis), Mississippi (G. c. pulla), and Cuba (G. c. nesiotes). We used analysis of mitochondrial DNA control region (CR) sequences to determine whether haplotypes representing current subspecies show any genetic cohesion or are more consistent with a pattern of clinal variation in morphology. CR sequences indicate that only two highly divergent (5.3%) lineages of sandhill cranes occur in North America: one lineage composed only of arctic-nesting G. c. canadensis, the other of the remaining North American subspecies (we lack data on the Cuban population). The deep split between lineages is consistent with an estimated isolation of approximately 1.5 Mya (mid-Pleistocene), while the distribution of mutational changes within lineages is consistent with an hypothesis of rapid, post-Pleistocene population expansions. No other phylogeographic structuring is concordant with subspecific boundaries, however, analysis of molecular variance indicates that there is significant population genetic differentiation among all subspecies except G. c. tabida and G. c. rowani, which are indistinguishable. We suggest that recognition of the recently named G. c. rowani be abandoned.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".