ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Sampling related individuals within ponds biases estimates of population structure in a pond-breeding amphibian.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Genetic Diversity and Inbreeding Effects in an Endangered Amphibian: Effects of Ecological Restoration and Stochasticity.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Evidence of Population Fragmentation of the Western European HedgehogEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Haplotype-resolved genome and population genomics of the threatened garden dormouse in Europe.Genome research · 2024Article
- Dealing With Assumptions and Sampling Bias in the Estimation of Effective Population Size: A Case Study in an Amphibian Population.Evolutionary applications · 2024Article
- Global, regional, and cryptic population structure in a high gene-flow transatlantic fish.PloS one · 2023Article
- Host association, environment, and geography underlie genomic differentiation in a major forest pest.Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- Genomics reveal population structure, evolutionary history, and signatures of selection in the northern bottlenose whale, Hyperoodon ampullatus.Molecular ecology · 2022Article
- Restoring faith in conservation action: Maintaining wild genetic diversity through the Tasmanian devil insurance program.iScience · 2022Article
- rspatialdata: a collection of data sources and tutorials on downloading and visualising spatial data using R.F1000Research · 2022Article
- Life in the desert: The impact of geographic and environmental gradients on genetic diversity and population structure ofEcology and evolution · 2021Article
- 'Mainland-island' population structure of a terrestrial salamander in a forest-bocage landscape with little evidence for in situ ecological speciation.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Sampling related individuals within ponds biases estimates of population structure in a pond-breeding amphibian.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective conservation and management of pond-breeding amphibians depends on the accurate estimation of population structure, demographic parameters, and the influence of landscape features on breeding-site connectivity. Population-level studies of pond-breeding amphibians typically sample larval life stages because they are easily captured and can be sampled nondestructively. These studies often identify high levels of relatedness between individuals from the same pond, which can be exacerbated by sampling the larval stage. Yet, the effect of these related individuals on population genetic studies using genomic data is not yet fully understood. Here, we assess the effect of within-pond relatedness on population and landscape genetic analyses by focusing on the barred tiger salamanders (
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.