quantitative traits Data from selective harvests underestimate temporal trends in
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Human harvests can select against pheno-types favoured by natural selection, and naturalresource managers should evaluate possible arti-ficial selection on wild populations. Because therequired genetic data are extremely difficult togather, however, managers typically rely on har-vested animals to document temporal trends.It is usually unknown whether these data areunbiased. We explore our ability to detecta decline in horn size of bighorn sheep (Oviscanadensis) by comparing harvested males withall males in a population where evolutionarychanges owing to trophy hunting were previouslyreported. Hunting records underestimated thetemporal decline, partly because of an increasingproportion of rams that could not be harvestedbecause their horns were smaller than thethreshold set by hunting regulations. If har-vests are selective, temporal trends measuredfrom harvest records will underestimate themagnitude of changes in wild populations.Keywords: artificial selection; sport hunting;time series; ungulates1. INTRODUCTIONRecently, it has become evident that exploitation canlead to artificial selection [1–4]. As humans oftenprefer sex-age classes or morphological traits associatedwithhighnaturalsurvival,harvestmortalitydiffersfromnatural mortality [5]. Thus, harvests may lead to evol-utionary responses in life histories and morphology[6], outpacing other selective agents [7,8]. There havebeen calls to consider potentially undesirable artificialselection in management and conservation [9,10].A first step to avoid artificial selection is evaluatingwhich practices have undesired consequences. Asdetailed, individual monitoring is rarely available,attempts to quantify artificial selection in wild popu-lations usually rely on morphological, life history anddemographic data collected from harvested animals[6,11]. Harvest data, however, will not reflect popu-lation values if harvest is selective and varies inintensity over time, as may occur with trophy huntingand size-selective fisheries. For example, the agedistribution of shot red grouse (Lagopus lagopus scoti-cus) was biased by harvest intensity [12]. Similarbiases may affect temporal trends in morphologicaltraits estimated from harvest data. If harvest prob-ability is affected by regulations for minimum size,gear selectivity [13] or by cultural preferences, theaverage size of harvested animals should be greaterthan the population average. These biases have beenacknowledged [14], but it remains unknown howthey affect our ability to detect temporal trends inphenotypic traits.To test whether data from selective harvests can beused to detect temporal trends in phenotype, we ana-lysed nearly four decades of detailed individualmonitoring of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis)inapopulation where unlimited trophy hunting favouredrams with slow-growing horns [2,15]. We comparedharvested animals with the whole population. In mostof the province of Alberta, harvest of bighorn rams isbased on minimum horn curl (figure 1). This manage-ment strategy protects sub-adults but leads to theharvest of rams with rapidly growing horns aged 4–6years [5,16], before they obtain the high reproductivesuccess associated with large horns at ages 7–11[17,18]. Similar regulations for both bighorn and thin-horn (Ovis dalli) sheep, combining curl restrictionsand unlimited resident permits, exist in most ofCanada and in Alaska. The ‘legal’ definition of a har-vestable ram is thus comparable to antler pointrestrictions often used for cervids [19].2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».