Improving species conservation plans under IUCN’s One Plan Approach using quantitative genetic methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human activities are resulting in altered environmental conditions that are impacting the demography and evolution of species globally. If we wish to prevent anthropogenic extinction and extirpation, we need to improve our ability to restore wild populations. Ex situ populations can be an important tool for species conservation. However, it is difficult to prevent deviations from an optimal breeding design and altered environments in captivity seem likely to lead to evolutionary or plasticity-induced phenotypic change that could make reintroduction more difficult. Quantitative genetic analysis can help disentangle the causes of phenotypic change in ex situ populations. Consequently, quantitative genetics can improve the management of these populations and the success of in situ population management actions that they support. In this review we outline methods that could be used to improve the management of in situ and ex situ populations in a One Plan Approach. We discuss how quantitative genetic models can help measure genetic variation, phenotypic plasticity, and social effects on phenotypes. Finally, we discuss how phenotypic change can be predicted using measurements of additive genetic variance and selection. While previous work has highlighted the value of ex situ populations for the field of quantitative genetics, we argue that quantitative genetics can, in turn, offer opportunities to improve management and consequently conservation of populations of species at risk. We show that quantitative genetic analyses are a tool that could be incorporated into and improve ex situ management practices.
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 | 0.033 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".