The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A COMPARISON OF THREE INDIRECT METHODS FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE LEVELS OF GENE FLOW
Abstract
Three methods for estimating the average level of gene flow in natural population are discussed and compared. The three methods are FST, rare alleles, and maximum likelihood. All three methods yield estimates of the combination of parameters (the number of migrants [Nm] in a demic model or the neighborhood size [4πDσ2] in a continuum model) that determines the relative importance of gene flow and genetic drift. We review the theory underlying these methods and derive new analytic results for the expectation of FST in stepping‐stone and continuum models when small sets of samples are taken. We also compare the effectiveness of the different methods using a variety of simulated data. We found that the FST and rare‐alleles methods yield comparable estimates under a wide variety of conditions when the population being sampled is demographically stable. They are roughly equally sensitive to selection and to variation in population structure, and they approach their equilibrium values at approximately the same rate. We found that two different maximum‐likelihood methods tend to yield biased estimates when relatively small numbers of locations are sampled but more accurate estimates when larger numbers are sampled. Our conclusion is that, although FST and rare‐alleles methods are expected to be equally effective in analyzing ideal data, practical problems in estimating the frequencies of rare alleles in electrophoretic studies suggest that FST is likely to be more useful under realistic conditions.
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
Environmental correlates of population differentiation in Atlantic herring
Bekkevold, D., Aandré3, C., Dahlgren, T. G., Clausen, L. A. W., Torstensen, E., Mosegaard, H., Carvalho, G. R., Christensen, T. B., Norlinder, E., & Ruzzante, D. E. (2005) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00977.x · Cited by 1,223
Cited by
Population Genetic Consequences of Small Population Size: Implications for Plant Conservation
Ellstrand, N. C. (1993) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.24.1.217 · Cited by 2,631
Genetic Differentiation and Estimation of Gene Flow from F -Statistics Under Isolation by Distance
Rousset, F. (1997) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/145.4.1219 · Cited by 2,496
Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST≠1/(4Nm+1)
Whitlock, M. C., & McCauley, D. E. (1999) · Heredity · doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6884960 · Cited by 1,544
Evaluating loci for use in the genetic analysis of population structure.
(1996) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0237 · Cited by 1,535
Dispersal, Gene Flow, and Population Structure
Bohonak, A. J. (1999) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/392950 · Cited by 1,253
Metadata
- Authors
- Slatkin, M., & Barton, N. H.
- Venue
- Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1989-11
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1349-1368
- ISSN
- 0014-3820 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-5646
- OpenAlex
- W1964510979
- Cited by
- 1,437
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.78
- 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: A COMPARISON OF THREE INDIRECT METHODS FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE LEVELS OF GENE FLOW. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02587.x
- The paper
- Slatkin, M., & Barton, N. H. (1989). A COMPARISON OF THREE INDIRECT METHODS FOR ESTIMATING AVERAGE LEVELS OF GENE FLOW. Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.1989.tb02587.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.