What can genetics tell us about population connectivity?

By W. Lowe, F. Allendorf. Molecular Ecology, 2010

946 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/545590ff658af9a507f184be9c1240fb3a91350f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. S. Arnaud-Haond
2. E. Ser‐Giacomi
3. O. Berry
4. Marie Beger
5. Andrew Lowe
6. M. Byrne
7. A. Helm
8. Michael L. Berumen

In Genetics

1. P. Meirmans
2. Andrew Lowe
3. R. Toonen
4. S. Arnaud-Haond
5. P. Hedrick
6. O. Berry
7. Marie Beger
8. M. Byrne

Citations in the corpus

• Ocean's eleven: a critical evaluation of the role of population, evolutionary and molecular genetics in the management of wild fisheries (2015, background): “Foremost among these is that there are different thresholds for genetic and demographic connectivity between stocks (Lowe and Allendorf 2010).”
• Marine connectivity: a new look at pelagic larval duration and genetic metrics of dispersal (2011, neutral): “The net effects of these newly studied phenomena are reductions in the number of larval trajectories and the total dispersal distance — perhaps by 100s of kilo- 293 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 436: 291–305, 2011 meters (Shanks 2009, Marshall et al. 2010).”
• Restoration of plant species and genetic diversity depends on landscape‐scale dispersal (2018, background): “…be highly dependent on the presence and suitable roaming conditions for wild animals, e.g. mammals and birds, but also ants, acting as important dispersal vectors S96 Restoration Ecology June 2018 for many plant species (Magrach et al. 2012; González-Varo et al. 2013; González-Varo et al. 2017).”
• Bridging the gap: a genetic assessment framework for population‐level threatened plant conservation prioritization and decision‐making (2016, background): “More recently, Lowe & Allendorf (2010) noted at FST values >0.2 (equivalent to one migrant per generation under theoretical expectations), there is insufficient connectivity for populations to avoid the harmful effects of local inbreeding and, at FST > 0.35, populations are not sufficiently…”
• Linking epigenetics and biological conservation: Towards a conservation epigenetics perspective (2019, neutral): “If assignment analyses may contrarily allow identifying contemporary dispersal events (Manel, Gaggiotti, & Waples, 2005), they also require contrasted genetic allelic frequencies among patches, confining their use to spatially structured populations (Lowe & Allendorf, 2010).”
• Assessing population structure: FST and related measures (2011, background): “However, this does not mean that F-statistics cannot be used as a rough indicator of the degree of population connectivity (Lowe & Allendorf 2010).”
• The status of coral reef ecology research in the Red Sea (2013, background): “Studies dealing with connectivity in coral reefs have dramatically proliferated in the last decade (Jones et al. 2009), and have been fuelled by the development of new genetic techniques (Lowe and Allendorf 2010).”
• Linking basin‐scale connectivity, oceanography and population dynamics for the conservation and management of marine ecosystems (2016, background): “It accounts for the impact of dispersal processes on growth and mortality rates13 of a subpopulation [Lowe & Allendorf 2010].”
• The application of genetics to marine management and conservation: Examples from the Indo-Pacific (2014, background): “In such cases, it is often unclear whether the lack of resolution is a result of power, methodological limitations, or a true lack of any population differentiation (Ryman et al. 2006, Lowe and Allendorf 2010, Marko and Hart 2011; Table 2).”