Do conservation translocations involve or result in hybridization and what are the consequences of hybridization for conservation? A systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundConservation translocations are the intentional movement of plants and animals to another location for the purpose of conservation (IUCN/SSC, 2013). Conservation translocations can have intended and unintended impacts on threatened populations. Conservation translocations can be beneficial, harmful, or both and such impacts can be intended or unintended (Novak et al., 2021). Conservation translocations can result in or involve hybridization. Hybridization is defined as the interbreeding of individuals from genetically distinct populations and can be intentional or unintentional. Hybridization can be interspecific, intraspecific or between subspecies (Chan et al., 2019). For conservation practitioners, understanding if hybridization might occur and what the consequences are is a key consideration when developing conservation management policies. There is currently no systematic review of (A) the frequency of hybridization after conservation translocations and (B) the consequences of hybridization occurring after conservation translocations. This review will provide critical insight and information for conservation professionals and scientists who are considering conservation translocations. MethodsA thorough search of peer-reviewed journal articles, open-access articles, and grey literature will be conducted. Five different databases will be searched, one open access (BASE) and four subscription based (Web of Science Core Collection, Zoological Record, Scopus, and BIOSIS). Bibliographic information will be recorded using the citation management software Zotero. Two screening stages will be performed (title/abstract, then full text) against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The retained relevant literature will be subjected to coding and meta-data extraction. Each relevant study will then be critically appraised, based on a set of predefined validity criteria. Relevant knowledge gaps and emergent themes will be identified and discussed further.
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 | 0.071 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.008 |
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".