Retrospective genetic monitoring of the threatened Yellow marsh saxifrage (<i><scp>S</scp>axifraga hirculus</i>) reveals genetic erosion but provides valuable insights for conservation strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Retrospective genetic monitoring, comparing genetic diversity of extant populations with historical samples, can provide valuable and often unique insights into evolutionary processes informing conservation strategies. The Yellow marsh saxifrage ( S axifraga hirculus ) is listed as ‘critically endangered’ in Ireland with only two extant populations. We quantified genetic changes over time and identified genotypes in extant populations that could be used as founders for reintroductions to sites where the species is extinct. Location Ireland. Methods Samples were obtained from both locations where the species is currently found, including the most threatened site at the G arron P lateau, C o. A ntrim, which held only 13 individuals during 2011. Herbarium samples covering the period from 1886 to 1957 were obtained including plants from the same area as the most threatened population, as well as three extinct populations. In total, 422 individuals (319 present‐day and 103 historical) were genotyped at six microsatellite loci. Species distribution modelling was used to identify areas of potentially suitable habitat for reintroductions. Results Level of phenotypic diversity within the most threatened population was significantly lower in the present‐day compared with historical samples but levels of observed heterozygosity and number of alleles, whilst reduced, did not differ significantly. However, B ayesian clustering analysis suggested gradual lineage replacement over time. All three measures of genetic diversity were generally lower at the most threatened population compared with the more substantial extant populations in C o. Mayo. Species distribution modelling suggested that habitat at one site where the species is extinct may be suitable for reintroduction. Main conclusions The dominant genetic lineage in the most threatened population is rare elsewhere; thus, care needs to be taken when formulating any potential reintroduction programme. Our findings highlight both the need for genetic monitoring of threatened populations, but also for its swift implementation before levels of diversity become critically low.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".