Genetic monitoring suggests increasing structure following recolonization by fishers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Population bottlenecks, fragmentation, and isolation can have lasting effects on population genetic structure by decreasing diversity and increasing differentiation among regions. Fishers (Pekania pennanti) were extirpated from many regions of Ontario, Canada, in the early twentieth century because of overharvest, habitat loss, and predator control, although the species has since recolonized much of its former range. Between 2001 and 2003, the recolonized population could be split into several genetically distinct clusters likely corresponding to historical trapping refuges. We reassessed the genetic diversity and population structure of fishers approximately 10 years after recolonization to determine whether homogenization had occurred among genetic clusters, and whether hypothesized northward migration had continued following recolonization of southeastern Ontario by fishers from the Adirondack Mountains of New York, USA. We found no significant changes in the uppermost level of genetic structure but did find evidence of increased lower‐level structure and decreased migration throughout the province, contrary to our hypothesis. This may be indicative of a reduction in fisher density or could be due to the population reaching a migration‐drift equilibrium following a period of rapid expansion. Our results highlight the potential importance and utility of continued genetic monitoring following local extirpation and recolonization. Conservation managers can use periodically sampled population genetic information to adapt and update management strategies. © 2018 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".