Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25067948›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2014

Nuclear and mitochondrial genetic structure in the Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) - implications for future reintroductions.

Helen Senn, Rob Ogden, Christiane Frosch, Alena Syrůčková, Roisin Campbell-Palmer, Pavel Munclinger, Walter Durka, Robert H S Kraus, Alexander P Saveljev, Carsten Nowak and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Genetic Diversity and Phylogenetic Relationships ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

17 authors.

Helen SennWildGenes Laboratory, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland Edinburgh, UK.
Rob OgdenWildGenes Laboratory, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland Edinburgh, UK.
Christiane FroschConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Gelnhausen, Germany.
Alena SyrůčkováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague Prague, Czech Republic.
Roisin Campbell-PalmerWildGenes Laboratory, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland Edinburgh, UK.
Pavel MunclingerDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague Prague, Czech Republic.
Walter DurkaDepartment of Community Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Halle, Germany.
Robert H S KrausConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Gelnhausen, Germany.
Alexander P SaveljevRussian Research Institute of Game Management and Fur Farming, Russian Academy of Sciences Kirov, Russia.
Carsten NowakConservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum Frankfurt Gelnhausen, Germany.
Annegret StubbeMartin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Institut für Biologie Bereich Zoologie/Molekulare Ökologie Hoher Weg 4 Halle/Saale, Germany.
Michael StubbeMartin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Institut für Biologie Domplatz 4 Halle/Saale, Germany.
Johan MichauxConservation Genetics Unit, Institute of Botany (Bat. 22), University of Liège (Sart Tilman) Liège, Belgium.
Vladimir LavrovVoronezh State Biosphere Reserve Voronezh, Russia.
Ravchig SamiyaDepartment of Zoology, School of Biology and Biotechnology, National University of Mongolia Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia.
Alius UleviciusFaculty of Natural Sciences, Vilnius University Vilnius, Lithuania.
Frank RosellTelemark University College, Department of Environmental Sciences Telemark, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many reintroduction projects for conservation fail, and there are a large number of factors that may contribute to failure. Genetic analysis can be used to help stack the odds of a reintroduction in favour of success, by conducting assessment of source populations to evaluate the possibility of inbreeding and outbreeding depression and by conducting postrelease monitoring. In this study, we use a panel of 306 SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) markers and 487-489 base pairs of mitochondrial DNA control region sequence data to examine 321 individuals from possible source populations of the Eurasian beaver for a reintroduction to Scotland. We use this information to reassess the phylogenetic history of the Eurasian beavers, to examine the genetic legacy of past reintroductions on the Eurasian landmass and to assess the future power of the genetic markers to conduct ongoing monitoring via parentage analysis and individual identification. We demonstrate the capacity of medium density genetic data (hundreds of SNPs) to provide information suitable for applied conservation and discuss the difficulty of balancing the need for high genetic diversity against phylogenetic best fit when choosing source population(s) for reintroduction.

Indexed as

applied conservation geneticsascertainment biasconservation genomicsevolutionarily significant unitinbreeding depressionoutbreeding depressionpopulation augmentation

Identifiers

PMID25067948
PMCPMC4105916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.