Guidelines for planning genomic assessment and monitoring of locally adaptive variation to inform species conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying and monitoring locally adaptive genetic variation can have direct utility for conserving species at risk, especially when management may include actions such as translocations for restoration, genetic rescue, or assisted gene flow. However, genomic studies of local adaptation require careful planning to be successful, and in some cases may not be a worthwhile use of resources. Here, we offer an adaptive management framework to help conservation biologists and managers decide when genomics is likely to be effective in detecting local adaptation, and how to plan assessment and monitoring of adaptive variation to address conservation objectives. Studies of adaptive variation using genomic tools will inform conservation actions in many cases, including applications such as assisted gene flow and identifying conservation units. In others, assessing genetic diversity, inbreeding, and demographics using selectively neutral genetic markers may be most useful. And in some cases, local adaptation may be assessed more efficiently using alternative approaches such as common garden experiments. Here, we identify key considerations of genomics studies of locally adaptive variation, provide a road map for successful collaborations with genomics experts including key issues for study design and data analysis, and offer guidelines for interpreting and using results from genomic assessments to inform monitoring programs and conservation actions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".