Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 945

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting the Probability of Outbreeding Depression

FRANKHAM, RICHARD, BALLOU, JONATHAN D., ELDRIDGE, MARK D. B., LACY, ROBERT C., RALLS, KATHERINE, DUDASH, MICHELE R., FENSTER, CHARLES B.·2011·Conservation Biology

Abstract

Abstract: Fragmentation of animal and plant populations typically leads to genetic erosion and increased probability of extirpation. Although these effects can usually be reversed by re‐establishing gene flow between population fragments, managers sometimes fail to do so due to fears of outbreeding depression (OD). Rapid development of OD is due primarily to adaptive differentiation from selection or fixation of chromosomal variants. Fixed chromosomal variants can be detected empirically. We used an extended form of the breeders’ equation to predict the probability of OD due to adaptive differentiation between recently isolated population fragments as a function of intensity of selection, genetic diversity, effective population sizes, and generations of isolation. Empirical data indicated that populations in similar environments had not developed OD even after thousands of generations of isolation. To predict the probability of OD, we developed a decision tree that was based on the four variables from the breeders’ equation, taxonomic status, and gene flow within the last 500 years. The predicted probability of OD in crosses between two populations is elevated when the populations have at least one of the following characteristics: are distinct species, have fixed chromosomal differences, exchanged no genes in the last 500 years, or inhabit different environments. Conversely, the predicted probability of OD in crosses between two populations of the same species is low for populations with the same karyotype, isolated for <500 years, and that occupy similar environments. In the former case, we recommend crossing be avoided or tried on a limited, experimental basis. In the latter case, crossing can be carried out with low probability of OD. We used crosses with known results to test the decision tree and found that it correctly identified cases where OD occurred. Current concerns about OD in recently fragmented populations are almost certainly excessive .

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.1523-1739.2011.01662.x

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 945

Metadata

Authors
FRANKHAM, R., BALLOU, J. D., ELDRIDGE, M. D. B., LACY, R. C., RALLS, K., DUDASH, M. R., & FENSTER, C. B.
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-12
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
465-475
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2154227822
Cited by
945
References
7
FWCI
26.13
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predicting the Probability of Outbreeding Depression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01662.x
The paper
FRANKHAM, R., BALLOU, J. D., ELDRIDGE, M. D. B., LACY, R. C., RALLS, K., DUDASH, M. R., & FENSTER, C. B. (2011). Predicting the Probability of Outbreeding Depression. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01662.x

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.