Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34772759›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2021

The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation.

Marty Kardos, Ellie E Armstrong, Sarah W Fitzpatrick, Samantha Hauser, Philip W Hedrick, Joshua M Miller, David A Tallmon, W Chris Funk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 250 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
250citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

250 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Assessing differences among elasmobranch nurseries to aid conservation based on a genomics framework.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

190 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Marty KardosNorthwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA 98112; martin.kardos@noaa.gov.ORCID 0000-0002-7587-3004
Ellie E ArmstrongDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0000-0001-7107-6318
Sarah W FitzpatrickW.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060.ORCID 0000-0002-5610-9449
Samantha HauserDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53211.
Philip W HedrickSchool of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.
Joshua M MillerSan Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance, Escondido, CA 92027.ORCID 0000-0002-4019-7675
David A TallmonBiology and Marine Biology Program, University of Alaska Southeast, Juneau, AK 99801.
W Chris FunkDepartment of Biology, Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523.ORCID 0000-0002-6466-3618

Funding

Biomedical Learning and Student Training (BLaST) ProgramUL1GM118991 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS · PI HUEFFER, KARSTEN · 2015 to 2023
$19.0M
Biomedical Learning and Student Training (BLaST) ProgramRL5GM118990 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS · PI HUEFFER, KARSTEN, REYNOLDS, ARLEIGH JAMES · 2015 to 2023
$10.5M
NIGMS NIH HHS RL5 GM118990NIGMS NIH HHS UL1 GM118991
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unprecedented rate of extinction calls for efficient use of genetics to help conserve biodiversity. Several recent genomic and simulation-based studies have argued that the field of conservation biology has placed too much focus on conserving genome-wide genetic variation, and that the field should instead focus on managing the subset of functional genetic variation that is thought to affect fitness. Here, we critically evaluate the feasibility and likely benefits of this approach in conservation. We find that population genetics theory and empirical results show that conserving genome-wide genetic variation is generally the best approach to prevent inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive potential from driving populations toward extinction. Focusing conservation efforts on presumably functional genetic variation will only be feasible occasionally, often misleading, and counterproductive when prioritized over genome-wide genetic variation. Given the increasing rate of habitat loss and other environmental changes, failure to recognize the detrimental effects of lost genome-wide genetic variation on long-term population viability will only worsen the biodiversity crisis.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemGenetic FitnessGeneticsGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationGenomeGenomicsInbreedingMetagenomicsPopulation Dynamicsextinctiongenomicspopulation dynamics

Identifiers

PMID34772759
PMCPMC8640931

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.