MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anthropogenic disturbance and evolutionary parameters: a lemon shark population experiencing habitat loss

2010· article· en· W1515641664 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph D. DiBattista, Kevin A. Feldheim, Dany Garant, Samuel H. Gruber, Andrew P. Hendry

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFlorida Sea Grant, University of FloridaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignCompany of BiologistsNational Fish and Wildlife FoundationNational Geographic SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)HabitatNatural selectionEcologyGenetic variationPopulationDisturbance (geology)Directional selectionHabitat destructionJuvenileNatural population growthDemographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The level of genetic variation in natural populations influences evolutionary potential, and may therefore influence responses to selection in the face of future environmental changes. By combining long-term monitoring of marked individuals with genetic pedigree reconstruction, we assessed whether habitat loss influenced genetic variation in a lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) population at an isolated nursery lagoon (Bimini, Bahamas). We also tracked changes in the strength and direction of natural selection. Contrary to initial expectations, we found that after the habitat loss neutral genetic variation increased, as did additive genetic variance for juvenile morphological traits (body length and mass). We hypothesize that these effects might result from philopatric behavior in females coupled with a possible influx of male genotypes from other nursery sites. We also found changes in the strength of selection on morphological traits, which weakened considerably after the disturbance; habitat loss therefore changed the phenotypes favored by natural selection. Because such human-induced shifts in the adaptive landscape may be common, we suggest that conservation biologists should not simply focus on neutral genetic variation per se, but also on assessing and preserving evolutionary parameters, such as additive genetic variation and selection.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207