Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18211885›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2008

Introduction. Evolutionary dynamics of wild populations: the use of long-term pedigree data.

L E B Kruuk, W G Hill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pedigree analysis in the mhorr gazelle (Ecology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The 'algebra of evolution': the Robertson-Price identity and viability selection for body mass in a wild bird population.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Improved probability of detection of ecological "surprises".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2010
    Review
  18. Speciation genetics: current status and evolving approaches.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010
    Review
  19. Looking forward to another successful year.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2010
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

L E B KruukInsitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, UK. loeske.kruuk@ed.ac.uk
W G Hill

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies of populations in the wild can provide unique insights into the forces driving evolutionary dynamics. This themed issue of Proc. R. Soc. B focuses on new developments in long-term analyses of animal populations where pedigree information has been collected. These address fundamental questions in evolutionary biology concerning the genetic basis of phenotypic diversity, patterns of natural and sexual selection, the occurrence of inbreeding and inbreeding depression, and speciation. Contributions include the analysis of evolutionary responses to climate change, exploration of the genetic basis of senescence, the exploitation of advances in molecular genetic technology, and reviews of developments in quantitative genetic methodology. We discuss here common themes, specific problems and pointers for future research.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionData Interpretation, StatisticalAnimalsAnimals, WildPedigreePopulation Dynamics

Identifiers

PMID18211885
PMCPMC2596852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.