MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3170541744 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.22065

Genetic Diversity and Divergence among Bighorn Sheep from Reintroduced Herds in Washington and Idaho

2021· article· en· W3170541744 on OpenAlexaffabout
Soraia Barbosa, Kimberly R. Andrews, Richard B. Harris, Digpal Singh Gour, Jennifer R. Adams, E. Frances Cassirer, Hollie M. Miyasaki, Helen Schwantje, Lisette P. Waits

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
FundersU.S. Bureau of Land ManagementIdaho Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsOvis canadensisSubspeciesGenetic diversityEcologyGeographyHerdWildlifeBiologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) populations in the western United States have undergone widespread declines and extirpations since the late nineteenth century as a consequence of introduced diseases, competition with livestock, and unregulated hunting. Washington, Idaho, USA, and British Columbia, Canada were historically thought to be occupied by 2 bighorn lineages or subspecies: Rocky Mountain (O. c. canadensis) and California (O. c. californiana). The putative California lineage was completely extirpated in the United States, and reintroductions to reestablish populations were sourced directly or indirectly from a single region in southern British Columbia. Restoration efforts have attempted to maintain the diversity and divergence of these 2 lineages, sometimes referred to as subspecies although taxonomic classifications have changed over time. In this study we describe genetic variation in a subset of native and reintroduced herds of California and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep. We examined genetic diversity and divergence between bighorn sheep herds using 15 microsatellite loci, including 4 loci linked to genes involved in immune function. We analyzed 504 samples from reintroduced herds in Washington (n = 10 California herds, n = 4 Rocky Mountain herds) and Idaho (n = 5 California), and source herds in Oregon (n = 1 Rocky Mountain) and British Columbia (n = 5 California, 1 Rocky Mountain). Genetic structure reflected known reintroduction history, and geographic proximity also was associated with decreased genetic divergence. Herds in Washington and Idaho sourced from California bighorn sheep were less genetically diverse than those sourced from Rocky Mountain herds. Also, levels of relatedness within and across California herds were higher than in Rocky Mountain herds and similar to what would be expected for full and half siblings. Lower diversity and higher relatedness among California herds is a concern for long‐term fitness and likely related to past population bottlenecks, fewer source populations, and management history, such as entirely sourcing California herds from British Columbia. Genetic divergence of neutral loci between California and Rocky Mountain herds was greater than that of adaptive loci, potentially indicating that balancing selection has maintained similar genetic diversity across lineages in loci associated with immune and other adaptive functions. Thus, we recommend future reintroductions and augmentations should continue to use source populations from the appropriate California or Rocky Mountain lineage to avoid potential outbreeding depression and maintain possible adaptive differences. This could be accomplished by obtaining sheep from ≥1 source within the genetic lineage, while avoiding sourcing from admixed herds. Future work encompassing a broader geographic sampling of populations and a greater portion of the genome is necessary to better evaluate the degree to which contemporary divergence between lineages is associated with recent founder effects and genetic isolation or evolutionary adaptation. © 2021 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207