MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393338622 · doi:10.1101/2024.03.27.586886

Pitfalls and windfalls of detecting demographic declines using population genetics in long-lived species

2024· preprint· en· W4393338622 on OpenAlexaff
Meaghan I. Clark, Sarah W. Fitzpatrick, Gideon S. Bradburd

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationLongevityPopulation bottleneckBiologyDemographic changeGenetic diversityPopulation sizeBottleneckDemographyEcologyGenetic monitoringEvolutionary biologyGeographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Detecting recent demographic changes is a crucial component of species conservation and management, as many natural populations face declines due to anthropogenic habitat alteration and climate change. Genetic methods allow researchers to detect changes in effective population size (N e ) from sampling at a single timepoint. However, in species with long lifespans, there is a lag between the start of a decline in a population and the resulting decrease in genetic diversity. This lag slows the rate at which diversity is lost, and therefore makes it difficult to detect recent declines using genetic data. However, the genomes of old individuals can provide a window into the past, and can be compared to those of younger individuals, a contrast that may help reveal recent demographic declines. To test whether comparing the genomes of young and old individuals can help infer recent demographic bottlenecks, we use forward-time, individual-based simulations with varying mean individual lifespans and extents of generational overlap. We find that age information can be used to aid in the detection of demographic declines when the decline has been severe. When average lifespan is long, comparing young and old individuals from a single timepoint has greater power to detect a recent (within the last 50 years) bottleneck event than comparing individuals sampled at different points in time. Our results demonstrate how longevity and generational overlap can be both a hindrance and a boon to detecting recent demographic declines from population genomic data.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→