Monitoring the effective population size of a brown bear (<i>Ursus arctos</i>) population using new single‐sample approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effective population size (N(e) ) could be the ideal parameter for monitoring populations of conservation concern as it conveniently summarizes both the evolutionary potential of the population and its sensitivity to genetic stochasticity. However, tracing its change through time is difficult in natural populations. We applied four new methods for estimating N(e) from a single sample of genotypes to trace temporal change in N(e) for bears in the Northern Dinaric Mountains. We genotyped 510 bears using 20 microsatellite loci and determined their age. The samples were organized into cohorts with regard to the year when the animals were born and yearly samples with age categories for every year when they were alive. We used the Estimator by Parentage Assignment (EPA) to directly estimate both N(e) and generation interval for each yearly sample. For cohorts, we estimated the effective number of breeders (N(b) ) using linkage disequilibrium, sibship assignment and approximate Bayesian computation methods and extrapolated these estimates to N(e) using the generation interval. The N(e) estimate by EPA is 276 (183-350 95% CI), meeting the inbreeding-avoidance criterion of N(e) > 50 but short of the long-term minimum viable population goal of N(e) > 500. The results obtained by the other methods are highly consistent with this result, and all indicate a rapid increase in N(e) probably in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The new single-sample approaches to the estimation of N(e) provide efficient means for including N(e) in monitoring frameworks and will be of great importance for future management and conservation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".