Incorporating life history diversity in an integrated population model to inform viability analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Life history diversity can significantly affect population dynamics and effects of management actions. For instance, variation in individual responses to environmental variability can reduce extirpation risk to populations, as the portfolio effect dampens temporal variability in abundance. Moreover, differences in habitat use may cause individuals to respond differently to habitat management and climate variability. To explore the role of life history diversity in population trajectories, population models need to incorporate within-population variation. Integrated population modeling (IPM) is a population modeling approach that offers several advantages for sharing information and propagating uncertainty across datasets. In this study, we developed an IPM for an endangered population of Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Wenatchee River, Washington, USA, that accounts for diversity in juvenile life histories, spawning location, and return age. Our analysis revealed that diversity in the age of juvenile emigration from natal streams had a portfolio effect, resulting in a 20% reduction in year-to-year variability in adult abundance in population projections. Our population viability analysis suggests that management interventions may be necessary to meet recovery goals, and our model should be useful for simulating the outcomes of proposed actions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".