Patterns of genetic variation in rare and widespread plant congeners.

By Matthew A. Gitzendanner, Pamela S. Soltis. American-Eurasian journal of botany, 2000

717 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c68b96fbffe6ce0f65f1cae068798408e5bbb145

How researchers see this paper

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

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

1. Roosa Leimu
2. Olivier Honnay
3. S. Lavergne
4. M. Debussche
5. M. Neel
6. Eric Garnier
7. H. Jacquemyn
8. S. Lester

In Genetics

1. S. Hopper
2. Roosa Leimu
3. Olivier Honnay
4. M. Neel
5. S. Lester
6. M. Fischer
7. F. Van Rossum
8. Michael P. Cummings

Citations in the corpus

• How general are positive relationships between plant population size, fitness and genetic variation? (2006, background): “For example, in contrast to a widespread assumption, rare species do not always have small population sizes (Rabinowitz 1981; Gitzendanner & Soltis 2000).”
• Comparison of different nuclear DNA markers for estimating intraspecific genetic diversity in plants (2004, background): “For allozymes, the opposite association has been reported (Hamrick & Godt 1996); as well as a complete lack of association (Gitzendanner & Soltis 2000).”
• Linking the gaps between conservation research and conservation management of rare dipterocarps: A case study of Shorea lumutensis (2006, background): “…(Lewis and Crawford, 1995; Young and Brown, 1996; Maguire and Sedgley, 1997; Mateu-Andrés and Segarra-Moragues, 2000; Neel and Ellstrand, 2001), suggesting the view that rare species have less variability than more widespread ones may be an over- generalization (Gitzendanner and Soltis, 2000).”
• OCBIL theory: towards an integrated understanding of the evolution, ecology and conservation of biodiversity on old, climatically buffered, infertile landscapes (2009, background): “Contrary to earlier hypotheses, widespread common species do not routinely exhibit higher intrapopulational genetic variability and relatively low divergence between populations compared with rarer congeners (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000).”
• Worldwide genotyping of castor bean germplasm (Ricinus communis L.) using AFLPs and SSRs (2008, background): “Ideally, we wish to compare levels of genetic diversity in castor bean with closely related genera as has been recommended for rare and widespread congeners (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000).”
• Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in an agricultural landscape on the common Primula veris, and comparison with its rare congener, P. vulgaris (2004, result): “It is also consistent with the results reported by Gitzendanner and Soltis (2000) in their review for rare and widespread congeners.”
• The biogeography of plant reproduction: potential determinants of species’ range sizes (2006, background): “Evidence supports the caveat that while self-fertilization may result in reduced diversity, it is not a rule (Gitzendanner & Soltis, 2000; Geber & Griffen, 2003).”
• Effectiveness of Conservation Targets in Capturing Genetic Diversity (2003, background): “…for numbers of alleles should be applied with some caution, because the number of alleles for the four taxa we examined were higher than are typically found in other rare taxa (e.g., Hamrick & Godt 1989; Gitzendanner & Soltis 2000), and fewer populations are required if allele numbers are lower.”
• The biology and ecology of narrow endemic and widespread plants: a comparative study of trait variation in 20 congeneric pairs (2004, background): “A plethora of evolutionary scenarios can lead to endemism, hence the scepticism of some authors concerning the idea that narrow endemic plant species display distinct biological attributes when compared with widespread congeners (Fiedler 1986, Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000).”
• Can a seed bank maintain the genetic variation in the above ground plant population (2008, background): “Some authors have suggested that different taxa cannot be treated as independent samples because of their phylogenetic relatedness and that in the absence of a phylogeny; only congeneric comparisons can be made (Gitzendanner and Soltis 2000).”