4.7 Review

Reconstructing routes of invasion using genetic data: why, how and so what?

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 19, 期 19, 页码 4113-4130

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04773.x

关键词

introduction; invasive species; molecular markers; outbreak; rapid evolution; statistical inferences

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche [ANR-06-BDIV-008-01, ANR-09-BLAN-0145-01]
  2. Agropolis Fondation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detailed knowledge about the geographical pathways followed by propagules from their source to the invading populations-referred to here as routes of invasion-provides information about the history of the invasion process and the origin and genetic composition of the invading populations. The reconstruction of invasion routes is required for defining and testing different hypotheses concerning the environmental and evolutionary factors responsible for biological invasions. In practical terms, it facilitates the design of strategies for controlling or preventing invasions. Most of our knowledge about the introduction routes of invasive species is derived from historical and observational data, which are often sparse, incomplete and, sometimes, misleading. In this context, population genetics has proved a useful approach for reconstructing routes of introduction, highlighting the complexity and the often counterintuitive nature of the true story. This approach has proved particularly useful since the recent development of new model-based methods, such as approximate Bayesian computation, making it possible to make quantitative inferences in the complex evolutionary scenarios typically encountered in invasive species. In this review, we summarize some of the fundamental aspects of routes of invasion, explain why the reconstruction of these routes is useful for addressing both practical and theoretical questions, and comment on the various reconstruction methods available. Finally, we consider the main insights obtained to date from studies of invasion routes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据