Integrating Genetic Data and Demographic Modeling to Facilitate Conservation of Small, Isolated Mountain Goat Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Acquisition of field data and analytical methods needed for conservation and management of wildlife populations represent significant challenges, particularly for species that inhabit landscapes that are difficult to access or species that persist in small, isolated populations. In such instances, integrating diverse and complementary data streams, such as genetic and non‐genetic data, can advance our understanding of population dynamics and associated management implications. We examined how genetic and morphologic data can be used to articulate population structure of a low‐density, peninsular population of mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus) on the Cleveland Peninsula, Alaska, USA, and surrounding areas, 2005–2018. We then use a population demographic modeling approach to examine how the use of population structure information influences sustainable harvest quotas, as compared to a panmictic, null model. Specifically, we conducted extensive field sampling of genetic (n = 446) and morphologic (i.e., horn length, n = 371) data to characterize population structure. We conducted demographic analyses and examined harvest modeling scenarios using a sex‐ and age‐specific matrix population modeling approach. Genetic and morphologic data analyses suggested peninsular subpopulations were demographically isolated, relative to surrounding mainland populations. Specifically, genetic structuring was evident and followed an isolation‐by‐distance, stepping‐stone pattern indicating limited interchange, low effective population sizes, and reduced genetic diversity along a peninsular extremity to mainland gradient. Harvest modeling indicated that overharvest would likely occur if the panmictic, null model was used to guide harvest because the smallest genetically defined population at the peninsular extremity was too small to permit any level of sustainable harvest. Our analyses illustrate the importance of using genetic and morphologic data, in combination with demographic modeling, to quantitatively delineate population boundaries and dynamics for ensuring viability of small, isolated populations. © 2020 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".