Restoring species through reintroductions: strategies for source population selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only a quarter of reintroduction programs succeed in restoring a self‐sustaining population of an extirpated species. Optimal source population selection for restoration efforts can increase the fitness of translocated individuals and improve reintroduction success. Here, we describe the support for two strategies for selecting source populations: pre‐existing adaptation and adaptive potential. The pre‐existing adaptation strategy focuses on source populations with a high frequency of genotypes that confer adaptations, and within this strategy we detail the ancestry matching approach and environment matching approach. The adaptive potential strategy focuses on source populations with high heritable genetic variation that confer the potential to adapt, and within this strategy we detail the single source population approach and multiple source population approach. We review empirical tests of the different approaches, and find stronger support for the pre‐existing adaptation strategy than the adaptive potential strategy. We provide a framework for source population selection based on the two strategies, highlighting the importance of gathering information on key environment features in the source and restoration locations, as well as detail the knowledge gaps. Filling these knowledge gaps is important for validating and potentially revising our proposed framework, and ultimately improving the success rate of restoring extirpated populations.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".