The immediate costs and long‐term benefits of assisted gene flow in large populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the genetic health of many plant and animal populations deteriorating due to climate change outpacing adaptation, interventions, such as assisted gene flow (AGF), may provide genetic variation necessary for populations to adapt to climate change. We ran genetic simulations to mimic different AGF scenarios in large populations and measured their outcomes on population-level fitness to determine circumstances in which it is worthwhile to perform AGF. In the absence of inbreeding depression, AGF was beneficial within a few generations only when introduced genotypes had much higher fitness than local individuals and traits affecting fitness were controlled by a few genes of large effect. AGF was harmful over short periods (e.g., first ∼10-20 generations) if there was strong outbreeding depression or introduced deleterious genetic variation. When the adaptive trait was controlled by many loci of small effect, the benefits of AGF took over 10 generations to realize-potentially too long for most climate-related management scenarios. The genomic integrity of the recipient population typically remained intact following AGF; the amount of genetic material from the donor population usually constituted no more of the recipient population's genome than the fraction of the population introduced. Significant genomic turnover (e.g., >50% replacement) only occurred when the selective advantage of the adaptive trait and translocation fraction were extremely high. Our results will be useful when adaptive management is used to maintain the genetic health and productivity of large populations under climate change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".