ArticlePeerJ2020
Gene flow relates to evolutionary divergence among populations at the range margin.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorphological differentiation between populations resulting from local adaptations to environmental conditions is likely to be more pronounced in populations with increasing genetic isolation. In a previous study a positive clinal variation in body size was observed in isolated Roesel's bush-cricket,
methodsTo disentangle genetic versus environmental drivers of population differences in morphology, we measured the size of four different body traits in wild-caught individuals from the two most distinct latitudinally-matched pairs of populations occurring at about 60°N latitude in northern Europe, characterised by either restricted or continuous gene flow, and corresponding individuals raised under laboratory conditions.
resultsIndividuals that originated from the genetically isolated populations were always bigger (femur, pronotum and genital appendages) when compared to individuals from latitudinally-matched areas characterised by continuous gene flow between populations. The magnitude of this effect was similar for wild-caught and laboratory-reared individuals. We found that previously observed size cline variation in both male and female crickets was likely to be the result of local genetic adaptation rather than phenotypic plasticity.
conclusionsThis strongly suggests that restricted gene flow is of major importance for frequencies of alleles that participate in climate-induced selection acting to favour larger phenotypes in isolated populations towards colder latitudes.
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.