MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4289295776 · doi:10.32942/osf.io/hn4by

The IUCN Red List is not sufficient to protect genetic diversity

2022· preprint· en· W4289295776 on OpenAlexafffund
Chloé Schmidt, Sean Hoban, Margaret Hunter, Ivan Paz‐Vinas, Colin J. Garroway

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIUCN Red ListGenetic diversityBiologyConservation geneticsBiodiversityEcologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Evolutionary biologyMicrosatellitePopulationGeneticsDemographyAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is an important and widely used conservation prioritization tool. It uses information about species range size, habitat quality and fragmentation levels, and trends in abundance to assess species extinction risk. Genetic erosion is an additional key factor determining extinction risk, but the Red List was not designed to assess genetic diversity. Declining populations experience stronger effects of genetic drift and higher rates of inbreeding, which can reduce the efficiency of selection, lead to fitness declines, and hinder species’ capacities to adapt to environmental change. Given the importance of conserving genetic diversity, several studies have attempted to find relationships between Red List status and genetic diversity. Yet, there is still no general consensus on whether genetic diversity is captured by the current Red List categories in a way that is informative for conservation, likely partly due to assessments using different molecular markers and taxa. Here, we synthesize previous work and re-analyze three datasets using different marker types (mitochondrial DNA, microsatellites, and whole genomes) to assess whether genetic diversity accurately predicts Red List threat status. Consistent with previous work we found that on average, species with higher threat status tended to have lower genetic diversity for all marker types, but the strength of these relationships varied across taxa. However, genetic diversity did not predict threat status well for any taxon or marker type. Our analyses indicate that Red List status is not a useful metric for informing species-specific decisions about the protection of genetic diversity. This is unsurprising because the Red List was not designed for conservation at the genetic level. Our findings clearly indicate a need to develop and incorporate metrics specifically developed to assess genetic diversity into our conservation policy frameworks.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→