Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal

Abstract

With an ecological‐evolutionary perspective increasingly applied toward the conservation and management of endangered or exploited species, the genetic estimation of effective population size ( N e ) has proliferated. Based on a comprehensive analysis of empirical literature from the past two decades, we asked: (i) how often do studies link N e to the adult census population size ( N )? (ii) To what extent is N e correctly linked to N ? (iii) How readily is uncertainty accounted for in both N e and N when quantifying N e / N ratios? and (iv) how frequently and to what degree might errors in the estimation of N e or N affect inferences of N e / N ratios? We found that only 20% of available N e estimates (508 of 2617; 233 studies) explicitly attempted to link N e and N ; of these, only 31% (160 of 508) correctly linked N e and N . Moreover, only 7% (41 of 508) of N e / N ratios (correctly linked or not) reported confidence intervals for both N e and N ; for those cases where confidence intervals were reported for N e only, 31% of N e / N ratios overlapped with 1, of which more than half also reached below N e / N = 0.01. Uncertainty in N e /N ratios thus sometimes spanned at least two orders of magnitude. We conclude that the estimation of N e / N ratios in natural populations could be significantly improved, discuss several options for doing so, and briefly outline some future research directions.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 67

1. 1.

   Alo D, Turner TF. Effects of habitat fragmentation on effective population size in the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. Conserv. Biol. 2005;19:1138-1148.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Ardren WR, Kapuscinski AR. Demographic and genetic estimates of effective population size (Ne) reveals genetic compensation in steelhead trout. Mol. Ecol. 2003;12:35-49.

   Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01705.x

3. 3.

   Beaumont MA. Estimation of population growth or decline in genetically monitored populations. Genetics. 2003;164:1139-1160.

   Not in our library10.1093/genetics/164.3.1139

4. 4.

   Belmar-Lucero S, Wood JLA, Scott S, Harbicht AB, Hutchings JA, Fraser DJ. Concurrent habitat and life history influences on effective/census population size ratios in stream-dwelling trout. Ecol. Evol. 2012;2:562-573.

   Not in our library10.1002/ece3.196

5. 5.

   Boyce MS. Population viability analysis. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1992;23:481-506.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Caswell H. Matrix population models: construction, analyses and interpretation. 2001.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Charlier J, Palmé A, Laikre L, Andersson J, Ryman N. Census (NC) and genetically effective (Ne) population size in a lake-resident population of brown trout Salmo trutta. J. Fish Biol. 2011;79:2074-2082.

   Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03124.x

8. 8.

   England PR, Cornuet JM, Berthier P, Tallmon DA, Luikart G. Estimating effective population size from linkage disequilibrium: severe bias in small samples. Conserv. Genet. 2006;7:303-308.

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Felsenstein J. Inbreeding and variance effective numbers in populations with overlapping generations. Genetics. 1971;68:581-597.

   Not in our library10.1093/genetics/68.4.581

10. 10.

    Frankham R. Effective population size adult population size ratios in wildlife – a review. Genet. Res. 1995;66:95-107.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672308009695

11. 11.

    Frankham R. Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2010;143:1919-1927.

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA. Introduction to conservation genetics. 2003.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Franklin IR, Soule ME, Wilcox B. Evolutionary change in small populations. Conservation biology: an evolutionary-ecological perspective. 1980;135-150.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Fraser DJ, Hansen MM, Østergaard S, Tessier N, Legault M, Bernatchez L. Comparative estimation of effective population sizes and temporal gene flow in two contrasting population systems. Mol. Ecol. 2007a;16:3866-3889.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03453.x

15. 15.

    Fraser DJ, Jones MW, McParland TL, Hutchings JA. Loss of historical immigration and the unsuccessful rehabilitation of extirpated salmon populations. Conserv. Genet. 2007b;8:527-546.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Gaggiotti OE, Vetter RD. Effect of life history strategy, environmental variability, and overexploitation on the genetic diversity of pelagic fish populations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1999;56:1376-1388.

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Hauser L, Adcock GJ, Smith PJ, Ramirez JHB, Carvalho GR. Loss of microsatellite diversity and low effective population size in an overexploited population of New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:11742-11747.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.172242899

18. 18.

    Henry P, Miguelle D, Sugimoto T, McCullough DR, Caccone A, Russello MA. In situ population structure and ex situ representation of the Amur tiger. Mol. Ecol. 2009;18:3173-3184.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04266.x

19. 19.

    Hill WG. Estimation of effective population size from data on linkage disequilibrium. Genet. Res. 1981;38:209-216.

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Jehle R, Arntzen W, Burke T, Krupa AP, Hodl W. The annual number of breeding adults and the effective population size of syntopic newts (Triturus cristatus T-marmoratus. Mol. Ecol. 2001;10:839-850.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01237.x

21. 21.

    Jehle R, Wilson GA, Arntzen JW. Contemporary gene flow and the spatio-temporal genetic structure of subdivided newt populations (Triturus cristatus, T. marmoratus. J. Evol. Biol. 2005;18:619-628.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00864.x

22. 22.

    Johnson JA, Bellinger MR, Toepfer JE, Dunn P. Temporal changes in allele frequencies and low effective population size in greater prairie-chickens. Mol. Ecol. 2004;13:2617-2630.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2004.02264.x

23. 23.

    Jorde PE. Allele frequency covariance among cohorts and its use in estimating effective size of age-structured populations. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2012;12:476-480.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03111.x

24. 24.

    Jorde PE, Ryman N. Temporal allele frequency change and estimation of effective size in populations with overlapping generations. Genetics. 1995;139:1077-1090.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/139.2.1077

25. 25.

    Jorde PE, Ryman N. Unbiased estimator for genetic drift and effective population size. Genetics. 2007;177:927-935.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.075481

26. 26.

    Kalinowski ST, Waples RS. Relationship of effective to census size in fluctuating populations. Conserv. Biol. 2002;16:129-136.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00134.x

27. 27.

    Leberg P. Genetic approaches for estimating the effective size of populations. J. Wildlife Manage. 2005;69:1385-1399.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Lee AM, Engen S, Sæther BE. The influence of persistent individual differences and age at maturity on effective population size. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2011;278:3303-3312.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2011.0283

29. 29.

    Luikart G, Ryman N, Tallmon DA, Schwartz MK, Allendorf FW. Estimation of census and effective population sizes: the increasing usefulness of DNA-based approaches. Conserv. Genet. 2010;11:355-373.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Lynch M, Lande R. The critical effective size for a genetically secure population. Anim. Conserv. 1997;1:70-72.

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Miller CR, Waits LP. The history of effective population size and genetic diversity in the Yellowstone grizzly (Ursus arctos): implications for conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:4334-4339.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0735531100

32. 32.

    Moyer GR, Sweka JA, Peterson DL. Past and present processes influencing genetic diversity and effective population size in a natural population of Atlantic sturgeon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 2012;141:56-67.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Newman D, Pilson D. Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution. 1997;51:354-362.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb02422.x

34. 34.

    Nunney L. The influence of mating system and overlapping generations on effective population size. Evolution. 1993;47:1329-1341.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.1993.tb02158.x

35. 35.

    Nunney L. Measuring the ratio of effective population size to adult numbers using genetic and ecological data. Evolution. 1995;49:389-393.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.1995.tb02253.x

36. 36.

    Nunney L. The influence of variation in female fecundity on effective population size. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1996;59:411-425.

    Not in our library

37. 37.

    Nunney L, Elam DR. Estimating the effective population size of conserved populations. Conserv. Biol. 1994;8:175-184.

    Not in our library

38. 38.

    Oehlert GW. A note on the delta method. Am Statistician. 1992;46:27-29.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Palstra FP, Ruzzante DE. Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: what can they tell us about the importance of genetic stochasticity for wild population persistence? Mol. Ecol. 2008;17:3428-3447.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.03842.x

40. 40.

    Palstra FP, O'Connell MF, Ruzzante DE. Age structure, changing demography and effective population size in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Genetics. 2009;182:1233-1249.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.109.101972

Cited by papers we hold 3

• Quantifying the relationship between genetic diversity and population size suggests natural selection cannot explain Lewontin’s Paradox · 2021
  No notice
• Estimating helminth burdens using sibship reconstruction · 2019
  Not checked
• Potential and limits for rapid genetic adaptation to warming in a Great Barrier Reef coral · 2018
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.