MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478876700 · doi:10.1111/mec.13790

Spatiotemporal relationship between adult census size and genetic population size across a wide population size gradient

2016· article· en· W2478876700 on OpenAlexafffund
Thaїs A. Bernos, Dylan J. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPopulation sizeEffective population sizePopulationCensusEcologyStatisticsDemographyEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult census population size (N) and effective number of breeders (Nb ) are highly relevant for designing effective conservation strategies. Both parameters are often challenging to quantify, however, making it of interest to determine whether one parameter can be generalized from the other. Yet, the spatiotemporal relationship between N and Nb has not been well characterized empirically in many taxa. We analysed this relationship for 5-7 consecutive years in twelve brook trout populations varying greatly in N (49-10032) and Nb (3-567) and identified major environmental variables affecting the two parameters. N or habitat size alone explained 47-57% of the variance in Nb , and Nb was strongly correlated with effective population size. The ratio Nb /N ranged from 0.01 to 0.45 and increased at small N or following an annual decrease in N, suggesting density-dependent constraints on Nb . We found no evidence for a consistent, directional difference between variability in Nb and/or Nb /N among small and large populations; however, small populations had more varying temporal variability in Nb /N ratios than large populations. Finally, Nb and Nb /N were 2.5- and 2.3-fold more variable among populations than temporally within populations. Our results demonstrate a clear linkage between demographic and evolutionary parameters, suggesting that Nb could be used to approximate N (or vice versa) in natural populations. Nevertheless, using one variable to infer the other to monitor trends within populations is less recommended, perhaps even less so in small populations given their less predictable Nb vs. N dynamics.

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)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations43
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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