The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
FAST‐TRACK: A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores
Abstract
Roads present formidable barriers to dispersal. We examine movements of two highly mobile carnivores across the Ventura Freeway near Los Angeles, one of the busiest highways in the United States. The two species, bobcats and coyotes, can disappear from habitats isolated and fragmented by roads, and their ability to disperse across the Ventura Freeway tests the limits of vertebrates to overcome anthropogenic obstacles. We combine radio‐telemetry data and genetically based assignments to identify individuals that have crossed the freeway. Although the freeway is a significant barrier to dispersal, we find that carnivores can cross the freeway and that 5–32% of sampled carnivores crossed over a 7‐year period. However, despite moderate levels of migration, populations on either side of the freeway are genetically differentiated, and coalescent modelling shows their genetic isolation is consistent with a migration fraction less than 0.5% per generation. These results imply that individuals that cross the freeway rarely reproduce. Highways and development impose artificial home range boundaries on territorial and reproductive individuals and hence decrease genetically effective migration. Further, territory pile‐up at freeway boundaries may decrease reproductive opportunities for dispersing individuals that do manage to cross. Consequently, freeways are filters favouring dispersing individuals that add to the migration rate but little to gene flow. Our results demonstrate that freeways can restrict gene flow even in wide‐ranging species and suggest that for territorial animals, migration levels across anthropogenic barriers need to be an order of magnitude larger than commonly assumed to counteract genetic differentiation.
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
Cites
Analyzing Tables of Statistical Tests
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2409177 · Cited by 14,571
Minimum viable metapopulation size
Hanski, I., Moilanen, A., & Gyllenberg, M. (1996) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/285864 · Cited by 399
Riley, S. P. D., Foley, J., & Chomel, B. (2004) · Journal of Wildlife Diseases · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-40.1.11 · Cited by 147
Self-citation
Cited by
Gene Flow in Complex Landscapes: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with Causal Modeling
Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S., Hayden, J., & Schwartz, M. K. (2006) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/506976 · Cited by 590
Connectivity metrics for conservation planning and monitoring
Keeley, A. T. H., Beier, P., & Jenness, J. S. (2021) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109008 · Cited by 243
Connecting endangered brown bear subpopulations in the Cantabrian Range (north‐western Spain)
Mateo‐Sánchez, M. C., Cushman, S. A., & Saura, S. (2014) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1111/acv.12109 · Cited by 62
Large Gaps in Canopy Reduce Road Crossing by a Gliding Mammal
van der Ree, R., Cesarini, S., Sunnucks, P., Moore, J. L., & Taylor, A. (2010) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-03759-150435 · Cited by 62
Wilson, R. F., Marsh, H., & Winter, J. (2007) · Wildlife Research · doi:10.1071/wr06114 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- RILEY, S. P. D., POLLINGER, J. P., SAUVAJOT, R. M., YORK, E. C., BROMLEY, C., FULLER, T. K., & WAYNE, R. K.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03-24
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1733-1741
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2167806262
- Cited by
- 572
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.02
- 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
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.