MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174186355 · doi:10.1139/z10-108

Heterosis and outbreeding depression between strains of young-of-the-year brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

2011· article· en· W2174186355 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Sébastien Granier, Céline Audet, Louis Bernatchez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeterosisBiologyOutbreeding depressionSalvelinusFontinalisTroutAquacultureBroodstockHatchingEcologyFisheryZoologyPopulationBotanyHybridFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyInbreeding

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis (Mitchill, 1814)) supports a lucrative fish aquaculture industry in Quebec and production of this species is mainly oriented to stock enhancement supporting sport fisheries. The aim of this study was to verify the expression of interstrain heterosis, i.e., increased performance of first generation hybrid progeny, during the first stages of development in brook trout. Two wild populations that were recently introduced to fish production in Quebec, the Laval (L) and the Rupert (R) strains, and a domestic strain (D) that is present in most Quebec fish farms were used in this study. The growth of 72 full-sibling families, representing three pure (♀D × ♂D, ♀L × ♂L, ♀R × ♂R) and five hybrid (♀D × ♂L, ♀D × ♂R, ♀L × ♂D, ♀L × ♂R, ♀R × ♂L) cross types, were surveyed from hatching to 2136 degree-days. Both heterosis and outbreeding depression were observed, depending on the hybrid cross type. The occurrence of heterosis was dependent on the developmental stage, and growth advantage at a very early developmental stage did not necessarily translate into bigger size later on. Outbreeding depression in growth (mass or length) was much less common than heterosis, and when occurring, it varied from 9.2% to 33.3% compared with 9.0% to 88.2% improvement in growth traits for heterosis. The results indicate that in early development, there was higher occurrence of heterosis relative to fish mass than to fish length and that, overall, the occurrence of heterosis was unpredictable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations39
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207