MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117489889 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2976

Among- and within-patch components of genetic diversity respond at different rates to habitat fragmentation: an empirical demonstration

2005· article· en· W2117489889 on OpenAlexaff
Nusha Keyghobadi, Jens Roland, Stephen F. Matter, Curtis Strobeck

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic diversityHabitat fragmentationGenetic driftBiologyEcologyPopulationPopulation fragmentationMetapopulationGenetic erosionFragmentation (computing)Evolutionary biologyPopulation geneticsGenetic structureHabitatGenetic variationGenetic divergenceGene flowBiological dispersalGeneticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Habitat fragmentation is a ubiquitous by-product of human activities that can alter the genetic structure of natural populations, with potentially deleterious effects on population persistence and evolutionary potential. When habitat fragmentation results in the subdivision of a population, random genetic drift then leads to the erosion of genetic diversity from within the resulting subpopulation, random genetic drift then leads to the erosion of genetic diversity from within the resulting subpopulations and greater genetic divergence among them. Theoretical and simulation analyses predict that these two main genetic effects of fragmentation, greater differentiation among resulting subpopulation and reduced genetic diversity within them, will proceed at very different rates. Despite important implications for the interpretation of genetics data from fragmented populations, empirical evidence for this phenomenon has been lacking. In this analysis, we carry out an empirical study in population of an alpine meadow-dwelling butterfly, which have become fragmented increasing forest cover over five decades. We show that genetic differentiation among subpopulations (G(ST)) is most highly correlated with contemporary forest cover, while genetics diversity within subpopulation (expected heterozygosity) is better correlated with the spatial pattern of forest cover 40 years in the past. Thus, where habitat fragmentation has occurred in recent decades, genetic differentiation among subpopulation can be near equilibrium while contemporary measures of within subpopulation diversity may substantially overestimate the equilibrium values that will eventually be attained.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations148
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207