MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922340162 · doi:10.1017/s1751731119000375

Analysis of lambing distribution in the Ripollesa sheep breed. II. Environmental and genetic sources of variation

2019· article· en· W2922340162 on OpenAlexaff
J. Casellas, Samir Id‐Lahoucine, Melani Martín de Hijas-Villalba

Bibliographic record

Venueanimal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic sheep reproductionFlockBiologyBreedAnimal scienceRuminantPurebredSeasonalityAnimal breedingVeterinary medicineAgronomyEcologyPasture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal reproduction patterns are typically observed in small ruminants and are a major limitation for production efficiency in most meat- and dairy-type production systems. Indeed, selection for reduced seasonality could be an appealing strategy for the small ruminant industry worldwide, although its genetic background has been poorly analyzed. One of the main limitations relied on the availability of appropriate analytical tools to cope with the circular (i.e. year-round) pattern of lambing and kidding data. The recent development of a heteroskedastic circular mixed model provided the statistical tool to go deeply into the knowledge of seasonality in small ruminants. In this study, 26 005 lambing distribution records from 4764 Ripollesa ewes collected in 20 purebred flocks were analyzed. The model accounted for systematic (lambing interval and ewe age), permanent environmental (flock-year-season and ewe) and additive genetic sources of variation influencing both mean and dispersion pattern (i.e. heteroskedasticity). Systematic effects suggested that first-lambing ewes and short lambing intervals delayed lambing date (~30 days) and increased dispersion of the lambing period. Nevertheless, this was partially compensated by ewe age, given that youngest females tended to concentrate the lambing peak. Flock-year-season, permanent ewe and additive genetic sources of variation reached moderate variance components for direct (and residual) effects on lambing distribution, they being 0.119 (0.156), 0.092 (0.132) and 0.195 (0.170) radians2, respectively. Moreover, all 95% credibility intervals were placed far from the null estimate. Covariances between direct and residual effects where high and positive for additive genetic (posterior mean, 0.814) and permanent ewe effects (posterior mean, 0.917), whereas it was not relevant for flock-year-season. Selection for direct additive genetic effects should be able to advance or delay the lambing peak, whereas selection applied on residual additive genetic effects should increase or reduce seasonality (i.e. concentrate or flatten the lambing peak). Moreover, the positive and relevant genetic covariance between direct and residual effects also suggested correlated genetic responses. As example, genetic selection for earlier lambing peaks must also reduce seasonality, whereas selection for narrower lambing seasons may originate a delay in the lambing peak. These results must be viewed as the first attempt to analyze systematic, environmental and genetic sources of variation of lambing distribution within the circular paradigm, they providing a reliable characterization of these effects within the context of an heteroskedastic model.

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)0.000
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 score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueanimalSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207