MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consequences of unequal population size, asymmetric gene flow and sex‐biased dispersal on population structure in brook charr (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>)

2003· article· en· W2156664710 on OpenAlexaff
Dylan J. Fraser, Catherine Lippé, Louis Bernatchez

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalSalvelinusBiologyPopulationGene flowEcologyTributaryEffective population sizeCoalescent theoryGenetic variationTroutFisheryGeographyDemographyGeneticsGeneCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unravelling relationships between dispersal and population structure requires considering the impacts of assumption violations of indirect gene flow models in a given system. We combined temporal, individual and coalescent-based analyses of microsatellite DNA variation to explore the general hypothesis that unequal effective population size (Ne), asymmetric gene flow (m) and nonrandom (sex-biased) individual dispersal had an important effect on spatiotemporal population structuring in lake-dwelling brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis). This integrative examination shed light on the dichotomous structuring observed between an outlet and three tributary-spawning populations and their potential for adaptive divergence. It revealed further that finer tributary population structuring incongruent with drainage structure has been shaped by asymmetric m from one population with a large Ne towards two populations of smaller Ne. Gene flow among the tributaries was also mediated mainly by male-biased dispersal. However, longer distance dispersal from tributaries to the outflow was female-biased. Spatially dependent sex-biased dispersal may have contributed therefore to gene flow at different levels of population structuring. Our results demonstrate how dispersal and population structure may interrelate to produce spatial variation in intraspecific diversity, and are therefore relevant for conservation programmes seeking to define conservation units or predict recolonization rates of extirpated populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations173
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207