MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082321320 · doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00252.x

The Walia ibex is a valuable and distinct conservation unit

2009· article· en· W2082321320 sur OpenAlexaff
Marco Festa‐Bianchet

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnimal Conservation · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Sherbrooke
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEndangered speciesPoachingIUCN Red ListCritically endangeredHabitatBiologyCapraHabitat destructionPopulationEcologyOvisConservation statusGeographyTaxonHabitat fragmentationTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyWildlife

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In addition to the usual suite of human-related threats to persistence (habitat destruction and fragmentation, competition and exotic diseases from livestock, poaching), the conservation of endangered wild sheep and goats (Ovis and Capra spp.) is hampered by a limited knowledge of their taxonomy. Taxonomic knowledge is important because it allows the preservation of local adaptations, avoidance of hybridization and, for reintroductions, the re-establishment of the right species in the right places. The taxonomy of wild sheep and goats, especially in Africa and Asia, is complicated by intergradation and hybridization of taxa, limited data owing to poor accessibility to much of their remote mountainous habitat, and contrasting results of molecular and morphological studies. Of all wild goats, the least known and the most endangered is the Walia ibex Caprawalie, restricted since historic times to the Siemen Mountains of Ethiopia, where a current population of about 450 uses 95 km2 of rugged high-elevation habitat. Although these ibex look very different from Nubian ibex Capra nubiana found in deserts around the Red Sea, they are likely related to them, and their status as a distinct species has been questioned. Gebremedhin et al. (2009) used DNA extracted from fecal samples and information on the physical and climatic characteristics of habitat used by both Walia and Nubian ibex to conclude that there are considerable genetic and substantial ecological differences between these taxa. Those differences justify the treatment of Walia ibex as a separate and valuable conservation and taxonomic unit. In other words, Walia ibex are a ‘good species.’ Unlike the desert-adapted Nubian ibex, the Walia ibex lives in a cold, high-elevation mountainous environment with substantial precipitation. Even though the two groups probably diverged less than a million year ago, they are now very different. As the authors point out, the estimated time since these two ibex became separated is likely three times as long as the apparent divergence time between polar and brown bears (Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos). Clearly, morphological differences and ecological adaptations are not necessarily a simple function of time or of genetic divergence: this is an extremely important point for both ecology and conservation. The main key to taxonomic divergence and therefore to speciation is not time, but differences in local selective pressures. Those different selective pressures lead to different adaptations, and preserving local adaptations must be a major goal of conservation. That means that we cannot simply quantify genetic differences along some chunk of DNA and always expect those differences to closely match either ecological specialization or conservation value. Both taxonomy and conservation require a holistic approach, considering genetics, morphology, ecology and, above all, evidence of local adaptation. The key point here is not whether Walia ibex either looks different from Nubian ibex or whether the Fst between the two is large or small – the point is that Walia ibex evolved adaptations to the highlands of Ethiopia and Nubian ibex are adapted to the desert! Pretending that weak genetic differentiation is relevant to conservation in this case is like arguing that polar and brown bears are not different. Importantly, the research by Gebremedhin and colleagues also identifies potential suitable habitat for Walia ibex outside its present range. These areas are possible candidates for introduction or reintroduction. Unfortunately, there is currently no information available about the former distribution of Walia ibex outside the Siemen Mountains, and the study also concluded that this species' decline may have been ongoing for a very long time. Knowledge about potential habitat, however, is very valuable for the conservation of this species, as the establishment of a separate population may serve as an insurance policy against any catastrophe that may affect the Siemen population. On the other hand, habitat analyses cannot by themselves identify all threats to a population, and before any introduction or reintroduction is attempted, information is required about competition from livestock, risks of poaching and other possible threats that may be faced by a new population. Those considerations are particularly important for a species that is already at risk because of low numbers, very small distribution and, as Gebremedhin and colleagues report, low genetic variability. Inevitably, any newly established population would have less genetic variability lower than the source. However, because the study found that there is substantial suitable habitat within the Siemen Mountains not currently used by ibex, it may be possible to establish new populations with some natural gene flow with the existing population. In the early 19th century, there were perhaps fewer than 100 Alpine ibex Capra ibex, all in the Gran Paradiso area of Italy. Tens of thousands are alive today and the ibex is again widely distributed in the Alps. That remarkable success was achieved through reintroductions, control of poaching and habitat protection. The news that there is substantial remaining habitat apparently available for Walia ibex gives hope that reintroductions and effective protection may see this species flourish in the future.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,037
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,551

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,222 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnimal ConservationMême sujetWildlife Ecology and ConservationTravaux en français237 207