Cited by 578Genetic diversity and population structureForensic and Genetic ResearchEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

Reliability of genetic bottleneck tests for detecting recent population declines

Open access
PEERY, M. ZACHARIAH, KIRBY, REBECCA, REID, BRENDAN N., STOELTING, RICKA, DOUCET‐BËER, ELENA, ROBINSON, STACIE, VÁSQUEZ‐CARRILLO, CATALINA, PAULI, JONATHAN N. +1 more·2012·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

The identification of population bottlenecks is critical in conservation because populations that have experienced significant reductions in abundance are subject to a variety of genetic and demographic processes that can hasten extinction. Genetic bottleneck tests constitute an appealing and popular approach for determining if a population decline has occurred because they only require sampling at a single point in time, yet reflect demographic history over multiple generations. However, a review of the published literature indicates that, as typically applied, microsatellite‐based bottleneck tests often do not detect bottlenecks in vertebrate populations known to have experienced declines. This observation was supported by simulations that revealed that bottleneck tests can have limited statistical power to detect bottlenecks largely as a result of limited sample sizes typically used in published studies. Moreover, commonly assumed values for mutation model parameters do not appear to encompass variation in microsatellite evolution observed in vertebrates and, on average, the proportion of multi‐step mutations is underestimated by a factor of approximately two. As a result, bottleneck tests can have a higher probability of ‘detecting’ bottlenecks in stable populations than expected based on the nominal significance level. We provide recommendations that could add rigor to inferences drawn from future bottleneck tests and highlight new directions for the characterization of demographic history.

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.2012.05635.x

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Soule ´ME (1980) Thresholds for survival: maintaining fitness and evolutionary potential. In: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (eds Soule ´ME and Wilcox BA), pp. 151-169. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland,, Massachusetts.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
PEERY, M. Z., KIRBY, R., REID, B. N., STOELTING, R., DOUCET‐BËER, E., ROBINSON, S., VÁSQUEZ‐CARRILLO, C., PAULI, J. N., & PALSBØLL, P. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
PEERY, M. ZACHARIAH
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-05-30
Volume
21
Issue
14
Pages
3403-3418
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2127249590
Cited by
578
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Harvard University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
population decline detection, microsatellite markers, statistical power, mutation models, sample size, false positives, vertebrate populations, conservation genetics, demographic history
MeSH terms
Animals, Computer Simulation, Genetics, Population, Models, Genetic, Mutation, Population Dynamics, Vertebrates, Microsatellite Repeats

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