Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22727017›Full record

ArticleTrends in ecology & evolution2012

Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units.

W Chris Funk, John K McKay, Paul A Hohenlohe, Fred W Allendorf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trends in ecology & evolution, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 347 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
347citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

347 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Wildlife Trade and Genetic Basis of Disease Susceptibility: A Review.International journal of immunogenetics · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

287 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

W Chris FunkDepartment of Biology, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA. Chris.Funk@colostate.edu
John K McKay
Paul A Hohenlohe
Fred W Allendorf

Funding

The Evolution of Protein FlexibilityP20RR016448 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI ROBISON, BARRIE D · 2002 to 2011
$19.3M
NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR016448NCRR NIH HHS P20RR16448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic data have the potential to revolutionize the delineation of conservation units (CUs) by allowing the detection of adaptive genetic variation, which is otherwise difficult for rare, endangered species. In contrast to previous recommendations, we propose that the use of neutral versus adaptive markers should not be viewed as alternatives. Rather, neutral and adaptive markers provide different types of information that should be combined to make optimal management decisions. Genetic patterns at neutral markers reflect the interaction of gene flow and genetic drift that affects genome-wide variation within and among populations. This population genetic structure is what natural selection operates on to cause adaptive divergence. Here, we provide a new framework to integrate data on neutral and adaptive markers to protect biodiversity.

Indexed as

BiodiversityGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationAdaptation, BiologicalConservation of Natural ResourcesGene FlowGenetic LociGenetic MarkersGenomicsPhylogenySpecies SpecificityGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID22727017
PMCPMC4185076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.