Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,504

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

INVITED REVIEW: What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity

Open access
WAPLES, ROBIN S., GAGGIOTTI, OSCAR·2006·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

We review commonly used population definitions under both the ecological paradigm (which emphasizes demographic cohesion) and the evolutionary paradigm (which emphasizes reproductive cohesion) and find that none are truly operational. We suggest several quantitative criteria that might be used to determine when groups of individuals are different enough to be considered ‘populations’. Units for these criteria are migration rate (m) for the ecological paradigm and migrants per generation (Nm) for the evolutionary paradigm. These criteria are then evaluated by applying analytical methods to simulated genetic data for a finite island model. Under the standard parameter set that includes L = 20 High mutation (microsatellite‐like) loci and samples of S = 50 individuals from each of n = 4 subpopulations, power to detect departures from panmixia was very high (∼100%; P < 0.001) even with high gene flow (Nm = 25). A new method, comparing the number of correct population assignments with the random expectation, performed as well as a multilocus contingency test and warrants further consideration. Use of Low mutation (allozyme‐like) markers reduced power more than did halving S or L. Under the standard parameter set, power to detect restricted gene flow below a certain level X (H 0: Nm < X) can also be high, provided that true Nm ≤ 0.5 X. Developing the appropriate test criterion, however, requires assumptions about several key parameters that are difficult to estimate in most natural populations. Methods that cluster individuals without using a priori sampling information detected the true number of populations only under conditions of moderate or low gene flow (Nm ≤ 5), and power dropped sharply with smaller samples of loci and individuals. A simple algorithm based on a multilocus contingency test of allele frequencies in pairs of samples has high power to detect the true number of populations even with Nm = 25 but requires more rigorous statistical evaluation. The ecological paradigm remains challenging for evaluations using genetic markers, because the transition from demographic dependence to independence occurs in a region of high migration where genetic methods have relatively little power. Some recent theoretical developments and continued advances in computational power provide hope that this situation may change in the future.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.02890.x

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
WAPLES, R. S., & GAGGIOTTI, O.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-04-13
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
1419-1439
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2172086791
Cited by
1,504
References
6
FWCI
39.58
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

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.