Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 171

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Genetic pollution of native eucalypt gene pools—identifying the risks

Open access
Potts, B. M., Barbour, R. C., Hingston, A. B., Vaillancourt, R. E.·2003·Australian Journal of Botany

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/bt02035

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 171

Metadata

Authors
Potts, B. M., Barbour, R. C., Hingston, A. B., & Vaillancourt, R. E.
Venue
Australian Journal of Botany
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.