Display options
Share it on

Ecol Evol. 2017 Mar 22;7(9):2871-2882. doi: 10.1002/ece3.2831. eCollection 2017 May.

Genetic evidence challenges the native status of a threatened freshwater fish (.

Ecology and evolution

Daniel L Jeffries, Gordon H Copp, Gregory E Maes, Lori Lawson Handley, Carl D Sayer, Bernd Hänfling

Affiliations

  1. Evolutionary Biology Group School of Biological, Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, Hardy Building University of Hull Hull UK.
  2. Salmon and Freshwater Team Cefas Lowestoft Suffolk UK.
  3. Department of Ecology and Evolution University of Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland.
  4. Department of Life and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science and Technology Bournemouth University Poole UK.
  5. Laboratory of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Genomics University of Leuven Leuven Belgium.
  6. Laboratory for Cytogenetics and Genome Research Centre for Human Genetics Genomics Core University of Leuven (KU Leuven), 3000 Leuven Belgium.
  7. Pond Restoratation Research Group Department of Geography Environmental Change Research Centre University College London London UK.

PMID: 28479988 PMCID: PMC5415527 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2831

Abstract

A fundamental consideration for the conservation of a species is the extent of its native range, that is, regions naturally colonized. However, both natural processes and human-mediated introductions can drive species distribution shifts. Ruling out the human-mediated introduction of a species into a given region is vital for its conservation, but remains a significant challenge in most cases. The crucian carp

Keywords: Approximate Bayesian Computation; introduced species; land bridge; microsatellites; postglacial recolonization

References

  1. J Biogeogr. 2014 Mar;41(3):548-560 - PubMed
  2. Bioinformatics. 2008 Dec 1;24(23):2713-9 - PubMed
  3. Trends Genet. 2003 Apr;19(4):200-6 - PubMed
  4. Mol Ecol. 2014 Mar;23(5):1153-66 - PubMed
  5. Ecol Evol. 2017 Mar 22;7(9):2871-2882 - PubMed
  6. Mol Ecol. 2002 Sep;11(9):1591-604 - PubMed
  7. BMC Genet. 2010 Oct 15;11:94 - PubMed
  8. J Fish Biol. 2012 Jun;80(7):2595-604 - PubMed
  9. Evolution. 1984 Nov;38(6):1358-1370 - PubMed
  10. Mamm Genome. 1992;3(8):452-6 - PubMed
  11. Nature. 2011 Jun 08;474(7350):153-4 - PubMed
  12. Mol Ecol. 2002 Sep;11(9):1717-29 - PubMed
  13. Evolution. 2009 May;63(5):1232-43 - PubMed
  14. Mol Ecol. 2016 Jul;25(13):2997-3018 - PubMed
  15. Mol Ecol Resour. 2008 Jan;8(1):103-6 - PubMed
  16. Mol Biol Evol. 1995 Nov;12(6):1074-84 - PubMed
  17. Conserv Biol. 2011 Jun;25(3):428-37 - PubMed
  18. J Fish Biol. 2011 Dec;79(6):1608-24 - PubMed
  19. Genome Res. 1996 Sep;6(9):876-9 - PubMed
  20. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Jul 28;11:401 - PubMed
  21. Bioinformatics. 2011 Nov 1;27(21):3070-1 - PubMed
  22. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2004 Apr;31(1):308-22 - PubMed
  23. Bioinformatics. 2014 Apr 15;30(8):1187-1189 - PubMed
  24. Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Jun;5(6):435-45 - PubMed
  25. Evolution. 1999 Oct;53(5):1536-1552 - PubMed
  26. Genetica. 2007 Mar;129(3):329-31 - PubMed
  27. Mol Ecol. 2008 May;17(10):2321-8 - PubMed
  28. Tsitol Genet. 2012 Jan-Feb;46(1):37-46 - PubMed

Publication Types