MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461144513 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2601

Effective number of breeders, effective population size and their relationship with census size in an iteroparous species, <i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>

2016· article· en· W2461144513 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel E. Ruzzante, Gregory R. McCracken, Samantha Parmelee, Kristen Hill, Amelia Corrigan, John L. MacMillan, Sandra J. Walde

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of AgricultureDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEffective population sizeSalvelinusPopulationBiologyPopulation sizeCensusDemographyRange (aeronautics)TroutSemelparity and iteroparityEcologyStatisticsReproductionMathematicsGenetic variationFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between the effective number of breeders (Nb) and the generational effective size (Ne) has rarely been examined empirically in species with overlapping generations and iteroparity. Based on a suite of 11 microsatellite markers, we examine the relationship between Nb, Ne and census population size (Nc) in 14 brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) populations inhabiting 12 small streams in Nova Scotia and sampled at least twice between 2009 and 2015. Unbiased estimates of Nb obtained with individuals of a single cohort, adjusted on the basis of age at first maturation (α) and adult lifespan (AL), were from 1.66 to 0.24 times the average estimates of Ne obtained with random samples of individuals of mixed ages (i.e. [Formula: see text]). In turn, these differences led to adjusted Ne estimates that were from nearly five to 0.7 times the estimates derived from mixed-aged individuals. These differences translate into the same range of variation in the ratio of effective to census population size [Formula: see text] within populations. Adopting [Formula: see text] as the more precise and unbiased estimates, we found that these brook trout populations differ markedly in their effective to census population sizes (range approx. 0.3 to approx. 0.01). Using AgeNe, we then showed that the variance in reproductive success or reproductive skew varied among populations by a factor of 40, from Vk/k ≈ 5 to 200. These results suggest wide differences in population dynamics, probably resulting from differences in productivity affecting the intensity of competition for access to mates or redds, and thus reproductive skew. Understanding the relationship between Ne, Nb and Nc, and how these relate to population dynamics and fluctuations in population size, are important for the design of robust conservation strategies in small populations with overlapping generations and iteroparity.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207