Evolution and genetics of bighead and silver carps: Native population conservation versus invasive species control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, collectively called bigheaded carps, are cyprinids native mainly to China and have been introduced to over 70 countries. Paleontological and molecular phylogenetic analyses demonstrate bighead and silver carps originated from the Yangtze-Huanghe River basins and modern populations may have derived from the secondary contact of geographically isolated fish during the last glacial events. Significant genetic differences are found among populations of native rivers (Yangtze, Pearl, and Amur) as well as introduced/invasive environments (Mississippi R., USA and Danube R., Hungary), suggesting genetic backgrounds and ecological selection may play a role in population differentiation. Population divergence of bighead carp or silver carp has occurred within their native rivers, whereas, within the Mississippi River Basin (MRB)-an introduced region, such genetic differentiation is likely taking place at least in silver carp. Interspecific hybridization between silver and bighead carps is rare within their native regions; however, extensive hybridization is observed in the MRB, which could be contributed by a shift to a more homogenous environment that lacks reproductive isolation barriers for the restriction of gene flow between species. The wild populations of native bighead and silver carps have experienced dramatic declines; in contrast, the introduced bigheaded carps overpopulate the MRB and are considered two invasive species, which strongly suggests fishing capacity (overfishing and underfishing) be a decisive factor for fishery resource exploitation and management. This review provides not only a global perspective of evolutionary history and population divergence of bigheaded carps but also a forum that calls for international research collaborations to deal with critical issues related to native population conservation and invasive species control.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".