Title: The paradox of forest fragmentation genetics
Author: Kramer, Andrea T.; Ison, Jennifer L.; Ashley, Mary V.; Howe, Henry F.
Date: 2008
Source: Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 4, 878–885
Description: Theory predicts widespread loss of genetic diversity from drift and inbreeding in trees subjected to habitat fragmentation, yet empirical support of this theory is scarce. We argue that population genetics theory
may be misapplied in light of ecological realities that, when recognized, require scrutiny of underlying evolutionary assumptions. One ecological reality is that fragment boundaries often do not represent boundaries for
mating populations of trees that benefit from long-distance pollination, sometimes abetted by long-distance seed dispersal. Where fragments do not delineate populations, genetic theory of small populations does not apply. Even in spatially isolated populations, where genetic theory may eventually apply, evolutionary arguments assume that samples from fragmented populations represent trees that have had sufficient time to
experience drift, inbreeding, and ultimately inbreeding depression, an unwarranted assumption where stands in fragments are living relicts of largely unrelated predisturbance populations. Genetic degradation may not
be as important as ecological degradation for many decades following habitat fragmentation.
Keywords: forest fragmentation, forest genetics, gene dispersal, inbreeding, long-distance pollination, tree genetics
View and Print this Publication (774 KB)
Publication Notes:
- We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
- This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.
Get the latest version of the Adobe Acrobat reader or Acrobat Reader for Windows with Search and Accessibility
Citation
Kramer, Andrea T.; Ison, Jennifer L.; Ashley, Mary V.; Howe, Henry F. 2008. The paradox of forest fragmentation genetics. Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 4, 878–885