The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal
Open accessAbstract
With an ecological‐evolutionary perspective increasingly applied toward the conservation and management of endangered or exploited species, the genetic estimation of effective population size (N e) has proliferated. Based on a comprehensive analysis of empirical literature from the past two decades, we asked: (i) how often do studies link N e to the adult census population size (N)? (ii) To what extent is N e correctly linked to N? (iii) How readily is uncertainty accounted for in both N e and N when quantifying N e/N ratios? and (iv) how frequently and to what degree might errors in the estimation of N e or N affect inferences of N e/N ratios? We found that only 20% of available N e estimates (508 of 2617; 233 studies) explicitly attempted to link N e and N; of these, only 31% (160 of 508) correctly linked N e and N. Moreover, only 7% (41 of 508) of N e/N ratios (correctly linked or not) reported confidence intervals for both N e and N; for those cases where confidence intervals were reported for N e only, 31% of N e/N ratios overlapped with 1, of which more than half also reached below N e/N = 0.01. Uncertainty in N e /N ratios thus sometimes spanned at least two orders of magnitude. We conclude that the estimation of N e/N ratios in natural populations could be significantly improved, discuss several options for doing so, and briefly outline some future research directions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Riccioni, G., Landi, M., Ferrara, G., Milano, I., Cariani, A., Zane, L., Sella, M., Barbujani, G., & Tinti, F. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0908281107 · Cited by 117
Cited by
Ancient mitochondrial DNA provides high-resolution time scale of the peopling of the Americas
Llamas, B., Fehren-Schmitz, L., Valverde, G., Soubrier, J., Mallick, S., Rohland, N., Nordenfelt, S., Valdiosera, C., Richards, S. M., Rohrlach, A., et al. (2016) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501385 · Cited by 290
Conservation and the Genomics of Populations
Allendorf, F. W., Funk, W. C., Aitken, S. N., Byrne, M., Luikart, G., & Antunes, A. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198856566.001.0001 · Cited by 207
Natural selection shaped the rise and fall of passenger pigeon genomic diversity
Murray, G. G. R., Soares, A. E. R., Novak, B. J., Schaefer, N. K., Cahill, J. A., Baker, A. J., Demboski, J. R., Doll, A., Da Fonseca, R. R., Fulton, T. L., et al. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aao0960 · Cited by 132
Navigating the temporal continuum of effective population size
Nadachowska‐Brzyska, K., Konczal, M., & Babik, W. (2022) · Methods in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1111/2041-210x.13740 · Cited by 116
New estimations of habitable land area and human population size at the Last Glacial Maximum
Gautney, J. R., & Holliday, T. W. (2015) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1016/j.jas.2015.03.028 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Palstra, F. P., & Fraser, D. J.
- Venue
- Ecology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-07-25
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2357-2365
- ISSN
- 2045-7758 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2089946748
- Cited by
- 382
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ece3.329
- The paper
- Palstra, F. P., & Fraser, D. J. (2012). Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal. Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.329
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.