Cited by 112Genetic diversity and population structureEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesForest ecology and management

Effects of Harvesting on Genetic Diversity in Old-Growth Eastern White Pine in Ontario, Canada. Efecto de la Cosecha Sobre la Diversidad Genetica de un Bosque Maduro de Pino Blanco del Este

Buchert, George P., Rajora, Om P., Hood, James V., Dancik, Bruce P.·1997·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Genetic diversity measures at 54 isozyme loci coding for 16 enzymes in megagametophytes were compared between preharvest and postharvest gene pools of two adjacent virgin, old-growth (∼250 years) stands of eastern white pine ( Pinus strobus L.) in the Galloway Lake Old Pine Area of central Ontario. The concurrence of genetic diversity changes between the stands suggests that real and repeatable genetic erosion occurred in these gene pools as a result of harvesting. The total and mean number of alleles detected in each stand were reduced by approximately 25% after tree density reductions of 75%. The percentage of polymorphic loci dropped by about 33% from preharvest levels. About 40% of the low frequency (0.25> p ≥ 0.01) alleles and 80% of the rare ( p < 0.01) alleles were lost from each stand because of harvesting. Hypothetical multilocus gametic diversity was reduced by about 40% in each stand after harvesting. Latent genetic potential of each stand was reduced by about 50%, suggesting that the ability of these gene pools to adapt to changing environmental conditions may have been compromised. Heterozygosity estimates in the postharvest stands did not reflect reductions in allelic richness due to harvesting. Observed heterozygosity increased by 12% in one stand after harvesting, even though other genetic diversity measures decreased. Gene frequency changes due to harvesting imply that gene pools of naturally regenerated progeny stands may be quite different from the original…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96074.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Authors
Buchert, G. P., Rajora, O. P., Hood, J. V., & Dancik, B. P.
Affiliations
  • Ontario Forest Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Buchert, George P.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-06
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
747-758
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W1861471664
Cited by
112
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Forest ecology and management
Keywords
Pinus strobus, old-growth forest, genetic diversity, genetic erosion, harvest effects, isozyme loci, rare alleles, heterozygosity, gene pool, natural regeneration, silviculture

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