MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex-differential effects of inbreeding on overwinter survival, birth date and mass of bighorn lambs

2010· article· en· W2151018591 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elise Rioux-Paquette, Marco Festa‐Bianchet, David W. Coltman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInbreedingBiologyInbred strainPopulationDemographySelection (genetic algorithm)Ovis canadensisZoologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is generally expected that inbreeding would lower fitness, few studies have directly quantified the effects of inbreeding in wild mammals. We investigated the effects of inbreeding using long-term data from bighorn sheep on Ram Mountain, Alberta, Canada, over 20 years. This population underwent a drastic decline from 1992 to 2002 and has since failed to recover. We used a pedigree to calculate inbreeding coefficients and examined their impact on lamb growth, birth date and survival. Inbreeding had a substantial effect on female survival: for a given mass in September, the probability of overwinter survival for inbred female lambs was about 40% lower than that of noninbred ones. Contrary to our expectations, inbred female lambs were born earlier than noninbred ones. Earlier birth led to inbred female lambs being heavier by mid-September than noninbred ones. There was a nonsignificant trend for inbred female yearlings to weigh more than noninbred ones. A stronger mass-dependent viability selection for inbred compared to noninbred female lambs may explain why surviving inbred females were heavier than noninbred ones. Survival of male lambs was not affected by inbreeding. Sex-differential effects of inbreeding may be a general pattern in sexually dimorphic mammals, because of sex-biased maternal care or sexual differences in early development strategies.

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 score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207