ReviewBiology letters2016
Coalescent inferences in conservation genetics: should the exception become the rule?
Review in Biology letters, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effective Population Size Estimation in Large Marine Populations: Considering Current Challenges and Opportunities When Simulating Large Data Sets With High-Density Genomic Information.Evolutionary applications · 2025Review
- Anthropogenic Landscape Alteration, but Not Urbanization, Influences Non-Adaptive Evolution in Common Milkweed (Ecology and evolution · 2025Article
- Deep-pelagic fishes: Demographic instability in a stable environment.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Expanding the stdpopsim species catalog, and lessons learned for realistic genome simulations.eLife · 2023Article
- Interpreting the pervasive observation of U-shaped Site Frequency Spectra.PLoS genetics · 2023Article
- Genome-wide estimates of genetic diversity, inbreeding and effective size of experimental and commercial rainbow trout lines undergoing selective breeding.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Exploring the causes of small effective population sizes in cyst nematodes using artificial Globodera pallida populations.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Phylogeographic pattern of the plane leaf miner, Phyllonorycter platani (STAUDINGER, 1870) (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) in Europe.BMC evolutionary biology · 2018Article
- Disentangling genetic structure for genetic monitoring of complex populations.Evolutionary applications · 2018Article
- Coalescent Processes with Skewed Offspring Distributions and Nonequilibrium Demography.Genetics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic estimates of effective population size (Ne) are an established means to develop informed conservation policies. Another key goal to pursue the conservation of endangered species is keeping the connectivity across fragmented environments, to which genetic inferences of gene flow and dispersal greatly contribute. Most current statistical tools for estimating such population demographic parameters are based on Kingman's coalescent (KC). However, KC is inappropriate for taxa displaying skewed reproductive variance, a property widely observed in natural species. Coalescent models that consider skewed reproductive success-called multiple merger coalescents (MMCs)-have been shown to substantially improve estimates of Ne when the distribution of offspring per capita is highly skewed. MMCs predictions of standard population genetic parameters, including the rate of loss of genetic variation and the fixation probability of strongly selected alleles, substantially depart from KC predictions. These extended models also allow studying gene genealogies in a spatial continuum, providing a novel theoretical framework to investigate spatial connectivity. Therefore, development of statistical tools based on MMCs should substantially improve estimates of population demographic parameters with major conservation implications.
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.