Quantitative genetic parameters for wild stream‐living brown trout: heritability and parental effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptability depends on the presence of additive genetic variance for important traits. Yet few estimates of additive genetic variance and heritability are available for wild populations, particularly so for fishes. Here, we estimate heritability of length-at-age for wild-living brown trout (Salmo trutta), based on long-term mark-recapture data and pedigree reconstruction based on large-scale genotyping at 15 microsatellite loci. We also tested for the presence of maternal and paternal effects using a Bayesian version of the Animal model. Heritability varied between 0.16 and 0.31, with reasonable narrow confidence bands, and the total phenotypic variance increased with age. When introducing dam as an additional random effect (accounting for c. 7% of total phenotypic variance), the level of additive genetic variance and heritability decreased (0.12-0.21). Parental size (both for sires and for dams) positively influenced length-at-age for juvenile trout--either through direct parental effects or through genotype-environment correlations. Length-at-age is a complex trait reflecting the effects of a number of physiological, behavioural and ecological processes. Our data show that fitness-related traits such as length-at-age can retain high levels of additive genetic variance even when total phenotypic variance is high.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".