Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187186›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary applications2022

Population genomic monitoring provides insight into conservation status but no correlation with demographic estimates of extinction risk in a threatened trout.

William Hemstrom, Daniel Dauwalter, Mary M Peacock, Douglas Leasure, Seth Wenger, Michael R Miller, Helen Neville

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary applications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

William HemstromDepartment of Animal Science University of California Davis California USA.
Daniel DauwalterScience Program Trout Unlimited Boise Idaho USA.
Mary M PeacockDepartment of Biology University of Nevada Reno Nevada USA.
Douglas LeasureWorldPop, Geography and Environmental Science University of Southampton Southampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8768-2811
Seth WengerOdum School of Ecology University of Georgia Athens Georgia USA.
Michael R MillerDepartment of Animal Science University of California Davis California USA.
Helen NevilleScience Program Trout Unlimited Boise Idaho USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9848-4565

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current extinction crisis requires effective assessment and monitoring tools. Genetic approaches are appealing given the relative ease of field sampling required to estimate genetic diversity characteristics assumed related to population size, evolutionary potential, and extinction risk, and to evaluate hybridization with non-native species simultaneously. However, linkages between population genetic metrics of diversity from survey-style field collections and demographic estimates of population size and extinction risk are still in need of empirical examples, especially for remotely distributed species of conservation concern where the approach might be most beneficial. We capitalized on an exceptional opportunity to evaluate congruence between genetic diversity metrics and demographic-based estimates of abundance and extinction risk from a comprehensive Multiple Population Viability Analysis (MPVA) in a threatened fish, the Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT). We sequenced non-native trout reference samples and recently collected and archived tissue samples of most remaining populations of LCT (

Indexed as

evolutionary adaptationgenetic monitoringhybridizationpopulation viability analysisRAD sequencingsalmonid

Identifiers

PMID36187186
PMCPMC9488680

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.