MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantitative genetic parameters for wild stream‐living brown trout: heritability and parental effects

2010· article· en· W1533170035 on OpenAlexaff
Dimitar Serbezov, Louis Bernatchez, Esben Moland Olsen, Leif Asbjørn Vøllestad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsHeritabilityBiologyBrown troutSalmoTraitQuantitative trait locusRestricted maximum likelihoodJuvenileAdditive genetic effectsGenetic correlationGenetic variationEvolutionary biologyGeneticsStatisticsFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryMaximum likelihood

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations38
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207