Short-Term Genetic Changes: Evaluating Effective Population Size Estimates in a Comprehensively Described Brown Trout (<i>Salmo trutta</i>) Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effective population size (N(e)) is notoriously difficult to accurately estimate in wild populations as it is influenced by a number of parameters that are difficult to delineate in natural systems. The different methods that are used to estimate N(e) are affected variously by different processes at the population level, such as the life-history characteristics of the organism, gene flow, and population substructure, as well as by the frequency patterns of genetic markers used and the sampling design. Here, we compare N(e) estimates obtained by different genetic methods and from demographic data and elucidate how the estimates are affected by various factors in an exhaustively sampled and comprehensively described natural brown trout (Salmo trutta) system. In general, the methods yielded rather congruent estimates, and we ascribe that to the adequate genotyping and exhaustive sampling. Effects of violating the assumptions of the different methods were nevertheless apparent. In accordance with theoretical studies, skewed allele frequencies would underestimate temporal allele frequency changes and thereby upwardly bias N(e) if not accounted for. Overlapping generations and iteroparity would also upwardly bias N(e) when applied to temporal samples taken over short time spans. Gene flow from a genetically not very dissimilar source population decreases temporal allele frequency changes and thereby acts to increase estimates of N(e). Our study reiterates the importance of adequate sampling, quantification of life-history parameters and gene flow, and incorporating these data into the N(e) estimation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".