Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28717392›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2017

The power of evolutionary rescue is constrained by genetic load.

Gavin S Stewart, Madeline R Morris, Allison B Genis, Marianna Szűcs, Brett A Melbourne, Simon J Tavener, Ruth A Hufbauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Founders predict trait evolution and population performance after evolutionary rescue in the red flour beetle.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Usefulness of temperate-adapted maize lines developed by doubled haploid and single-seed descent methods.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Gavin S StewartDepartment of Mathematics Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6835-6818
Madeline R MorrisDepartment of Biomedical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.
Allison B GenisDepartment of Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.
Marianna SzűcsDepartment of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.
Brett A MelbourneDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Colorado Boulder CO USA.
Simon J TavenerDepartment of Mathematics Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.
Ruth A HufbauerDepartment of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management Colorado State University Fort Collins CO USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The risk of extinction faced by small isolated populations in changing environments can be reduced by rapid adaptation and subsequent growth to larger, less vulnerable sizes. Whether this process, called evolutionary rescue, is able to reduce extinction risk and sustain population growth over multiple generations is largely unknown. To understand the consequences of adaptive evolution as well as maladaptive processes in small isolated populations, we subjected experimental

Indexed as

adaptationevolutionary rescueexperimental evolutiongenetic loadgenetic rescueinbreedingpopulation dynamicspopulation ecology

Identifiers

PMID28717392
PMCPMC5511356

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.