MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1907054564 · doi:10.1111/cobi.12122

Temporal Analysis of Genetic Structure to Assess Population Dynamics of Reintroduced Swift Foxes

2013· article· en· W1907054564 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine I. Cullingham, Axel Moehrenschlager

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesPopulationEcologyBiologyEffective population sizeMark and recaptureHabitat fragmentationGenetic diversityGenetic monitoringFragmentation (computing)Population sizeGeographyMicrosatelliteHabitatZoologyDemographyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reintroductions are increasingly used to reestablish species, but a paucity of long-term postrelease monitoring has limited understanding of whether and when viable populations subsequently persist. We conducted temporal genetic analyses of reintroduced populations of swift foxes (Vulpes velox) in Canada (Alberta and Saskatchewan) and the United States (Montana). We used samples collected 4 years apart, 17 years from the initiation of the reintroduction, and 3 years after the conclusion of releases. To assess program success, we genotyped 304 hair samples, subsampled from the known range in 2000 and 2001, and 2005 and 2006, at 7 microsatellite loci. We compared diversity, effective population size, and genetic connectivity over time in each population. Diversity remained stable over time and there was evidence of increasing effective population size. We determined population structure in both periods after correcting for differences in sample sizes. The geographic distribution of these populations roughly corresponded with the original release locations, which suggests the release sites had residual effects on the population structure. However, given that both reintroduction sites had similar source populations, habitat fragmentation, due to cropland, may be associated with the population structure we found. Although our results indicate growing, stable populations, future connectivity analyses are warranted to ensure both populations are not subject to negative small-population effects. Our results demonstrate the importance of multiple sampling years to fully capture population dynamics of reintroduced populations. Análisis Temporal de la Estructura Genética para Evaluar la Dinámica Poblacional de Zorros (Vulpes velox) Reintroducidos.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207