Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 606

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Estimating allelic richness: Effects of sample size and bottlenecks

Leberg, P. L.·2002·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Although differences in sampling intensity can bias comparisons of allelic richness (A) among populations, investigators often fail to correct estimates of A for differences in sample size. Methods that standardize A on the basis of the size of the smallest number of samples in a comparison are preferable to other approaches. Rarefaction and repeated random subsampling provide unbiased estimates of A with the greatest precision and thus provide greatest statistical power to detect differences in variation. Less promising approaches, in terms of bias or precision, include single random subsampling, eliminating very small samples, using sample size as a covariate or extrapolating estimates obtained from small samples to a larger number of individuals.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01612.x

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 606

Metadata

Authors
Leberg, P. L.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-11
Volume
11
Issue
11
Pages
2445-2449
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2104324437
Cited by
606
References
0
FWCI
8.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Estimating allelic richness: Effects of sample size and bottlenecks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01612.x
The paper
Leberg, P. L. (2002). Estimating allelic richness: Effects of sample size and bottlenecks. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.2002.01612.x

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.