Lack of concordance between genetic diversity estimates at the molecular and quantitative-trait levels

83 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Founding events in species invasions: genetic variation, adaptive evolution, and the role of multiple introductions (2008, background): “This decoupling can make molecular markers poor predictors (typically underestimates) of evolutionary potential in important fitness-related traits (Barrett & Richardson 1986; Pfrender et al. 2000; Merilä & Crnokrak 2001; Reed & Frankham 2001; McKay & Latta 2002), though few studies have adequately ”
What is the fitness outcome of crossing unrelated fish populations? A meta-analysis and an evaluation of future research directions (2007, unknown): “Experimental design should be based on quantitative genetic principles that permit estimation of a genetic distance based on quantitative traits, Qst ( Pfrender et al. 2000 ), which may be a more meaningful evolutionary distance.”
Evolution of plant materials for ecological restoration: insights from the applied and basic literature (2017, background): “Neutral molecular variation is not directly correlated with variation in traits that undergo selection (for metaanalyses see Pfrender et al. 2000; Reed & Frankham 2001).”
A comparative analysis of population structure of a forest tree, Eucalyptus globulus (Myrtaceae), using microsatellite markers and quantitative traits (2006, background): “There is often a poor correlation between molecular marker variation and quantitative variation for adaptively important traits (Bekessy et al. 2003; Pfrender 2000; Reed and Frankham 2001).”