MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090214278 · doi:10.1111/eva.12154

Joint effects of population size and isolation on genetic erosion in fragmented populations: finding fragmentation thresholds for management

2014· article· en· W2090214278 on OpenAlexaff
María Méndez, Matthias Vögeli, José L. Tella, José A. Godoy

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Applications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación
KeywordsBiologyPopulation fragmentationHabitat fragmentationGenetic erosionPopulation sizeIsolation by distanceGenetic diversityPopulationEcologyEffective population sizeEndangered speciesFragmentation (computing)Small population sizeGenetic variationInbreedingHabitatGenetic driftSelection (genetic algorithm)Local adaptationGenetic structureDemographyGene flowGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Size and isolation of local populations are main parameters of interest when assessing the genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. However, their relative influence on the genetic erosion of local populations remains unclear. In this study, we first analysed how size and isolation of habitat patches influence the genetic variation of local populations of the Dupont's lark (Chersophilus duponti), an endangered songbird. An information-theoretic approach to model selection allowed us to address the importance of interactions between habitat variables, an aspect seldom considered in fragmentation studies, but which explained up to 65% of the variance in genetic parameters. Genetic diversity and inbreeding were influenced by the size of local populations depending on their degree of isolation, and genetic differentiation was positively related to isolation. We then identified a minimum local population of 19 male territories and a maximum distance of 30 km to the nearest population as thresholds from which genetic erosion becomes apparent. Our results alert on possibly misleading conclusions and suboptimal management recommendations when only additive effects are taken into account and encourage the use of most explanatory but easy-to-measure variables for the evaluation of genetic risks in conservation programmes.

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 score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations56
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary ApplicationsSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207