4.7 Article

Compatible genetic and ecological estimates of dispersal rates in insect (Coenagrion mercuriale: Odonata: Zygoptera) populations:: analysis of 'neighbourhood size' using a more precise estimator

期刊

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
卷 16, 期 4, 页码 737-751

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.03184.x

关键词

capture-mark-recapture; conservation; dispersal; isolation by distance; spatial genetic structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic and demographic estimates of dispersal are often thought to be inconsistent. In this study, we use the damselfly Coenagrion mercuriale (Odonata: Zygoptera) as a model to evaluate directly the relationship between estimates of dispersal rate measured during capture-mark-recapture fieldwork with those made from the spatial pattern of genetic markers in linear and two-dimensional habitats. We estimate the 'neighbourhood size' (Nb) - the product of the mean axial dispersal rate between parent and offspring and the population density - by a previously described technique, here called the regression method. Because C. mercuriale is less philopatric than species investigated previously by the regression method we evaluate a refined estimator that may be more applicable for relatively mobile species. Results from simulations and empirical data sets reveal that the new estimator performs better under most situations, except when dispersal is very localized relative to population density. Analysis of the C. mercuriale data extends previous results which demonstrated that demographic and genetic estimates of Nb by the regression method are equivalent to within a factor of two at local scales where genetic estimates are less affected by habitat heterogeneity, stochastic processes and/or differential selective regimes. The corollary is that with a little insight into a species' ecology the pattern of spatial genetic structure provides quantitative information on dispersal rates and/or population densities that has real value for conservation management.

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