Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911962›Full record

ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2016

The genetic backburn: using rapid evolution to halt invasions.

Ben L Phillips, Richard Shine, Reid Tingley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Ben L PhillipsSchool of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia College of Marine and Environmental Science, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia phillipsb@unimelb.edu.au.
Richard ShineSchool of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7529-5657
Reid TingleySchool of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of an invasive species depends upon the extent of area across which it ultimately spreads. A powerful strategy for limiting impact, then, is to limit spread, and this can most easily be achieved by managing or reinforcing natural barriers to spread. Using a simulation model, we show that rapid evolutionary increases in dispersal can render permeable an otherwise effective barrier. On the other hand, we also show that, once the barrier is reached, and if it holds, resultant evolutionary decreases in dispersal rapidly make the barrier more effective. Finally, we sketch a strategy--the genetic backburn--in which low-dispersal individuals from the range core are translocated to the nearside of the barrier ahead of the oncoming invasion. We find that the genetic backburn--by preventing invasion front genotypes reaching the barrier, and hastening the evolutionary decrease in dispersal--can make barriers substantially more effective. In our simulations, the genetic backburn never reduced barrier strength, however, the improvement to barrier strength was negligible when there was substantial long-distance dispersal, or when there was no genetic variation for dispersal distance. The improvement in barrier strength also depended on the trade-off between dispersal and competitive ability, with a stronger trade-off conferring greater power to the genetic backburn.

Indexed as

Animal DistributionBiological EvolutionIntroduced SpeciesAnimalsAustraliaBufonidaeGenetic VariationModels, BiologicalPopulation Dynamicsbarriercontemporary evolutioninvasive speciesspatial sortingtargeted gene flow

Identifiers

PMID26911962
PMCPMC4810839

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.