The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The genetic implications of habitat fragmentation for animalsThis review is one of a series dealing with some aspects of the impact of habitat fragmentation on animals and plants. This series is one of several virtual symposia focussing on ecological topics that will be published in the Journal from time to time.
Abstract
The past decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of studies dealing with the genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation, in large part because of the increasing accessibility of techniques for assessing molecular genetic variation in wild populations. This body of work is extremely diverse and encompasses a variety of approaches that define and measure both habitat fragmentation and its potential genetic impacts. Here, I summarize the main questions that are being addressed, and approaches being taken, in empirical studies of the genetic impacts of habitat fragmentation in animals. Considerable effort has been spent in documenting how levels of genetic diversity, and the spatial distribution of that diversity, are altered by habitat fragmentation. However, proportionately less effort has been invested in directly examining specific genetic and evolutionary processes that may affect the persistence of populations inhabiting fragmented landscapes: inbreeding depression, the loss of adaptive potential, and the accumulation of deleterious mutations. One area in which considerable progress has been made over the past decade is in the development and application of novel methods for inferring demographic and landscape ecological characteristics of animals, particularly dispersal patterns, using genetic tools. In this area, a significant integration of genetic and ecological approaches in the study of fragmented populations is occurring.
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
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
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
SNPs in ecology, evolution and conservation
Morin, P. A., Luikart, G., Wayne, R. K., & the SNP workshop group (2004) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.01.009 · Cited by 1,080
The genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation
Templeton, A. R., Shaw, K., Routman, E., & Davis, S. K. (1990) · Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden · doi:10.2307/2399621 · Cited by 453
Cited by
Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework
SHIRK, A. J., WALLIN, D. O., CUSHMAN, S. A., RICE, C. G., & WARHEIT, K. I. (2010) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04745.x · Cited by 235
Rödder, D., Nekum, S., Cord, A. F., & Engler, J. O. (2016) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-016-0698-y · Cited by 21
Wilk, A. J., Donlon, K. C., & Peterman, W. E. (2020) · Urban Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s11252-020-00958-8 · Cited by 14
Heterozygosity is low where rare color variants in wild carnivores prevail
Tensen, L., & Fischer, K. (2024) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.10881 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Keyghobadi, N.
- Venue
- Canadian Journal of Zoology
- Publisher
- Canadian Science Publishing
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1049-1064
- ISSN
- 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
- 1480-3283
- OpenAlex
- W1970690793
- Cited by
- 430
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 4.69
- 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.