ArticleEvolutionary applications2013
Gene flow and demographic history of leopards (Panthera pardus) in the central Indian highlands.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Estimating Leopard population sizes in western Mozambique using SNP-based capture-mark-recapture models.Journal of mammalogy · 2025Article
- Can genetic rescue help save Arabia's last big cat?Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Population genetic attributes of common leopard (Panthera pardus fusca) from Uttarkashi, Western Himalayas.Molecular biology reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessing subspecies status of leopards (PeerJ · 2019Article
- Targeting restoration sites to improve connectivity in a tiger conservation landscape in India.PeerJ · 2018Article
- Article
- Historical isolation and contemporary gene flow drive population diversity of the brown alga Sargassum thunbergii along the coast of China.BMC evolutionary biology · 2017Article
- Article
- Article
- Panel of polymorphic heterologous microsatellite loci to genotype critically endangered Bengal tiger: a pilot study.SpringerPlus · 2014Article
- Article
- Forest corridors maintain historical gene flow in a tiger metapopulation in the highlands of central India.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene flow is a critical ecological process that must be maintained in order to counteract the detrimental effects of genetic drift in subdivided populations, with conservation benefits ranging from promoting the persistence of small populations to spreading adaptive traits in changing environments. We evaluated historical and contemporary gene flow and effective population sizes of leopards in a landscape in central India using noninvasive sampling. Despite the dramatic changes in land-use patterns in this landscape through recent times, we did not detect any signs that the leopard populations have been through a genetic bottleneck, and they appear to have maintained migration-drift equilibrium. We found that historical levels of gene flow (mean m h = 0.07) were significantly higher than contemporary levels (mean m c = 0.03), and populations with large effective population sizes (Satpura and Kanha Tiger Reserves) are the larger exporters of migrants at both timescales. The greatest decline in historical versus contemporary gene flow is between pairs of reserves that are currently not connected by forest corridors (i.e., Melghat-Pench m h - m c = 0.063; and Kanha-Satpura m h - m c = 0.054). We attribute this reduction in gene flow to accelerated fragmentation and habitat alteration in the landscape over the past few centuries, and suggest protection of forest corridors to maintain gene flow in this landscape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.