The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches
Open accessAbstract
Conservation of genetic diversity, one of the three main forms of biodiversity, is a fundamental concern in conservation biology as it provides the raw material for evolutionary change and thus the potential to adapt to changing environments. By means of meta‐analyses, we tested the generality of the hypotheses that habitat fragmentation affects genetic diversity of plant populations and that certain life history and ecological traits of plants can determine differential susceptibility to genetic erosion in fragmented habitats. Additionally, we assessed whether certain methodological approaches used by authors influence the ability to detect fragmentation effects on plant genetic diversity. We found overall large and negative effects of fragmentation on genetic diversity and outcrossing rates but no effects on inbreeding coefficients. Significant increases in inbreeding coefficient in fragmented habitats were only observed in studies analyzing progenies. The mating system and the rarity status of plants explained the highest proportion of variation in the effect sizes among species. The age of the fragment was also decisive in explaining variability among effect sizes: the larger the number of generations elapsed in fragmentation conditions, the larger the negative magnitude of effect sizes on heterozygosity. Our results also suggest that fragmentation is shifting mating patterns towards increased selfing. We conclude that current conservation efforts in fragmented habitats should be focused on common or recently rare species and mainly outcrossing species and outline important issues that need to be addressed in future research on this area.
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
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: A review
SAUNDERS, D. A., HOBBS, R. J., & MARGULES, C. R. (1991) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00384.x · Cited by 4,110 · cited 3×
“While evolutionary fragmentation may be a more gradual and slower process that may also ‘have an end’, ongoing ecological fragmentation is a much faster increasing, non-random process (Saunders et al. 1991; McGarigal & Cushman 2002; Fahrig 2003).”
BackgroundConfounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation
Ewers, R. M., & Didham, R. K. (2005) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1017/s1464793105006949 · Cited by 2,218
The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants
Young, A., Boyle, T., & Brown, T. (1996) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)10045-8 · Cited by 2,113
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01004.x · Cited by 1,285 · cited 1×
“If the fail-safe number is larger than 5n + 10, where n is the number of studies, then publication bias may be safely ignored (i.e. results are robust regardless of publication bias; Rosenberg 2005).”
BackgroundComparative evaluation of experimental approaches to the study of habitat fragmentation effects
McGarigal, K., & Cushman, S. A. (2002) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[0335:ceoeat]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 731
Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution
Arnqvist, G., & Wooster, D. (1995) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(00)89073-4 · Cited by 570
Cascante, A., Quesada, M., Lobo, J. J., & Fuchs, E. A. (2002) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00317.x · Cited by 246 · cited 2×
“These results represent a clear example of how genetic erosion can have short-term impacts on individual fitness and population viability (e.g. Cascante et al. 2002; Fuchs et al. 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Cited by
Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people
Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B., & Palkovacs, E. P. (2021) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01403-5 · Cited by 253
Hiatt, A. C., Hove, A. A., Ward, J. R., Ventura, L., Neufeld, H. S., Boyd, A. E., Clarke, H. D., Horton, J. L., & Murrell, Z. E. (2021) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/icab089 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- AGUILAR, R., QUESADA, M., ASHWORTH, L., HERRERIAS‐DIEGO, Y., & LOBO, J.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 5177-5188
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2143144439
- Cited by
- 878
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 14.41
- 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.