MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2904278173 · doi:10.1101/488650

Six percent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution

2018· preprint· en· W2904278173 on OpenAlexafffund
Deborah M. Leigh, Andrew P. Hendry, Ella Vázquez‐Domínguez, Vicki L. Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGenetic variationVariation (astronomy)BiologyPopulationBiodiversityGenetic variabilitySafeguardingGenetic erosionEcologyClimate changeDemographyGenetic diversityGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variation underpins population fitness and adaptive potential 1,2 . Thus it plays a key role in any species’ probability of long-term persistence, particularly under global climate change. Genetic variation can be lost in a single generation but its replenishment may take hundreds of generations 3 . For that reason safeguarding genetic variation is considered fundamental to maintaining biodiversity, and is an Aichi Target for 2020 4 . As human activities are driving declines in many wild populations 5 , genetic variation is also likely declining. However the magnitude of ongoing genetic variation loss has not been assessed, despite its importance. Here we show a 6% decline in within-population genetic variation of wild organisms since the industrial revolution. The erosion of genetic variation has been most severe for island species, with an 18% average decline. We also identified several key taxonomic and geographic information gaps that must be urgently addressed. Our results are consistent with single time-point meta-analyses that indicated genetic variation is likely declining 6,7 . However, our results represent the first confirmation of a global decline, and estimate of the magnitude of the genetic variation lost from wild populations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→