The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue
Open accessAbstract
Restoring gene flow into small, isolated populations can alleviate genetic load and decrease extinction risk (i.e., genetic rescue), yet gene flow is rarely augmented as a conservation strategy. Due to this discrepancy between opportunity and action, a recent call was made for widespread genetic rescue attempts. However, several aspects of augmenting gene flow are poorly understood, including the magnitude and duration of beneficial effects and when deleterious effects are likely to occur. We discuss the remaining uncertainties of genetic rescue in order to promote and direct future research and to hasten progress toward implementing this potentially powerful conservation strategy on a broader scale.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Simulations show that offspring resulting from interbreeding between the two saola populations would have higher fitness due to the reduction in genetic load, a phenomenon referred to as genetic rescue.
“Moreover, we show by simulations that offspring resulting from interbreeding between the two populations would have higher fitness due to the reduction in genetic load, a phenomenon referred to as genetic rescue.64,65”
From Genomes of critically endangered saola are shaped by population structure and purging (2025) · cites this paper as [65]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 78 · Cited by 305
- Authors
- Bell, D. A., Robinson, Z. L., Funk, W. C., Fitzpatrick, S. W., Allendorf, F. W., Tallmon, D. A., & Whiteley, A. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Montana (US)
- Colorado State University (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- University of Alaska Southeast (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bell, Donovan A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-12
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1070-1079
- ISSN
- 0169-5347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2956623065
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 78
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 27
- FWCI
- 4.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Trends in Ecology & Evolution (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DEB-1652278)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- genetic rescue, small isolated populations, genetic load, extinction risk, conservation genetics
- MeSH terms
- Conservation of Natural Resources, Inbreeding, Genetic Variation, Uncertainty, Gene Flow
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
