Fragmentation and patch size shape genetic structure of brook trout populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the relative influence of habitat patch size and connectivity on genetic structure and effective population size in eight brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) habitat patches in a watershed in Virginia, USA. Variation at eight microsatellite loci in 2229 young-of-the-year brook trout for two successive cohorts (2010 and 2011) was examined. Genetic differentiation across all populations was pronounced. Overall [Formula: see text] was 0.397 (95% CI: 0.322–0.525) and overall F ST was 0.124 (95% CI: 0.096–0.159). Above-barrier patch size had a strong positive relationship with genetic diversity, [Formula: see text], and genetic differentiation. Our analysis is consistent with greater extinction risk in smaller above-barrier patches. Larger above-barrier patches contained greater genetic diversity but reduced [Formula: see text] relative to adjacent below-barrier patches. The primary effect of barriers may be to reduce available above-barrier spawning habitat, even for larger above-barrier patches. Below-barrier patches also showed evidence of reduced genetic diversity and lack of connectivity. Genetic monitoring focused at gaining a broader understanding of the relationships here will be necessary to fully evaluate local extinction risks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".