Investigating the conservation genetics small population paradigm using the brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis): do small populations have less adaptive potential?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The conservation genetics small population paradigm predicts reduced quantitative genetic variation and consequently, adaptive potential, for populations which have become small and isolated due to habitat fragmentation. While these expectations are supported by laboratory studies, their generality in wild populations remain unresolved. In actuality, the evolutionary consequences of fragmentation may depend on whether environmental characteristics– and by extension, selective regimes are (1) shifted in a consistent directional manner as is widely assumed (Directional hypothesis), or (2) become more variable as population and fragment size decrease (Variable hypothesis); this latter possibility has so far received little empirical attention. \nImplementing field techniques, I explore these two competing hypotheses by relating variability in habitat characteristics to population size in a series of differentially abundant brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations located at Cape Race, Newfoundland. I furthermore use these hypotheses as a foundation to test the assumptions of the conservation genetic small population paradigm by investigating the relationships of population size at Cape Race to additive genetic variation (VA), trait differentiation (QST), and phenotypic plasticity in common garden analyses, and to the extent of natural selection in a meta-analysis using a large number of natural populations and species. \nAcross two years and in relation to two population size metrics, patterns of habitat characteristics among small versus large Cape Race populations supported the Variable hypothesis. However, small brook trout populations did not significantly differ from large populations in either the magnitude or variability of VA, QST, or phenotypic plasticity. Results of the meta-analysis similarly revealed little support for differences in the strength, direction, and form of selection among wild populations differing in population size. The lack of differences might be explained by long term fluctuating environmental conditions which resulted in fluctuating selective pressures and similar outcomes among small compared to large Cape Race populations, and among the species included in the meta-analysis. \nOverall, the results of this research contradict the assumption that small populations generally inhabit marginal environments and also dispute the major tenets of the conservation genetics small population paradigm. Taken together, they suggest that even very small populations of some species may retain the adaptive potential necessary to cope with future environmental change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».