The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Genetic pollution of native eucalypt gene pools—identifying the risks
Open accessAbstract
The contamination of native-eucalypt gene pools via exotic pollen is of concern as (i) pollen dispersal is believed to be much more widespread than seed dispersal, (ii) reproductive barriers are often weak between closely related species, (iii) European settlement has already had a major impact on Australia's eucalypt woodlands and mallee, (iv) there has been a rapid expansion of eucalypt plantations and restoration plantings in Australia and (v) Australia is the custodian of an internationally important genetic resource. Pollen flow between plantation and native eucalypt species has already been reported and implementation of strategies to minimise the risk and consequences of genetic pollution is important if Australian forestry is to be considered sustainable. The risks associated with the introduction of non-native species, provenances and hybrids include direct effects on the gene pool through genetic pollution as well as indirect effects on dependent biodiversity. In many cases, the risk of genetic pollution will be small due to strong barriers to hybridisation between distantly related species, differences in flowering time or poor fitness of hybrids. There is no risk of hybridisation between species from the different major eucalypt genera and/or subgenera (e.g. symphyomyrts, monocalypts, eudesmids, bloodwoods and angophora). The main plantation species are symphyomyrts and within this subgenus, the probability of successful hybridisation generally decreases with increasing taxonomic distance between species. The planting of non-local provenances or improved material within the range of native populations has the potential to have an impact on local gene pools to varying degrees, indicating the requirement for the adoption of management strategies to reduce this risk. Naturally small or remnant populations are at particular risk. A framework for assessment of the risk of genetic pollution is developed herein.
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
Cited by
Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective
Weeks, A. R., Sgro, C. M., Young, A. G., Frankham, R., Mitchell, N. J., Miller, K. A., Byrne, M., Coates, D. J., Eldridge, M. D. B., Sunnucks, P., et al. (2011) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00192.x · Cited by 916
Metadata
- Authors
- Potts, B. M., Barbour, R. C., Hingston, A. B., & Vaillancourt, R. E.
- Venue
- Australian Journal of Botany
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 2003-02-18
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-25
- ISSN
- 0067-1924 (ISSN-L)
- 1444-9862
- OpenAlex
- W2115427372
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Genetic pollution of native eucalypt gene pools—identifying the risks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/bt02035
- The paper
- Potts, B. M., Barbour, R. C., Hingston, A. B., & Vaillancourt, R. E. (2003). Genetic pollution of native eucalypt gene pools—identifying the risks. Australian Journal of Botany. https://doi.org/10.1071/bt02035
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.