scholarly journals Genetic population differentiation and connectivity among fragmented Moor frog (Rana arvalis) populations in The Netherlands

2007 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 1489-1500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Arens ◽  
Theo van der Sluis ◽  
Wendy P. C. van’t Westende ◽  
Ben Vosman ◽  
Claire C. Vos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Population Differentiation ◽  
Rana Arvalis ◽  
Genetic Population ◽  
Genetic Population Differentiation ◽  
Moor Frog

scholarly journals Correction: Berner, D. Allele Frequency Difference AFD—An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation. Genes 2019, 10, 308

Genes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 810
Author(s):  
Berner
Keyword(s):  
Allele Frequency ◽  
Population Differentiation ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Allele Frequency Difference ◽  
Genetic Population ◽  
Count Range ◽  
Single Allele ◽  
Genetic Population Differentiation ◽  
Allele Count ◽  
The Continuum

This note is to correct an error in my paper, concerning the Shannon differentiation metric (DShannon) (Reference [43] in the paper). The paper states that DShannon is undefined mathematically whenever one or both populations are monomorphic, that is, fixed for a single allele. Accordingly, the DShannon curve in Figure 1a, showing population differentiation in relation to allele counts for the case in which the pooled minor allele frequency (MAF) is maximal, did not extend across the full range of allele counts; the rightmost data point reflecting complete population differentiation was missing. Moreover, DShannon was completely missing in Figure 1b visualizing the continuum of allele frequency differentiation when the MAF is minimal (one population monomorphic across the entire allele count range).

scholarly journals Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (Theobroma cacao L)

PLoS ONE ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. e3311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan C. Motamayor ◽  
Philippe Lachenaud ◽  
Jay Wallace da Silva e Mota ◽  
Rey Loor ◽  
David N. Kuhn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Differentiation ◽  
Theobroma Cacao ◽  
Genetic Population ◽  
Genetic Population Differentiation ◽  
Theobroma Cacao L

scholarly journals Allele Frequency Difference AFD–An Intuitive Alternative to FST for Quantifying Genetic Population Differentiation

Genes ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berner
Keyword(s):  
Allele Frequency ◽  
Population Differentiation ◽  
Genomic Analysis ◽  
Frequency Difference ◽  
General Definition ◽  
Allele Frequency Difference ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Genetic Population ◽  
Genetic Population Differentiation ◽  
Low Sensitivity

Measuring the magnitude of differentiation between populations based on genetic markers is commonplace in ecology, evolution, and conservation biology. The predominant differentiation metric used for this purpose is FST. Based on a qualitative survey, numerical analyses, simulations, and empirical data, I here argue that FST does not express the relationship to allele frequency differentiation between populations generally considered interpretable and desirable by researchers. In particular, FST (1) has low sensitivity when population differentiation is weak, (2) is contingent on the minor allele frequency across the populations, (3) can be strongly affected by asymmetry in sample sizes, and (4) can differ greatly among the available estimators. Together, these features can complicate pattern recognition and interpretation in population genetic and genomic analysis, as illustrated by empirical examples, and overall compromise the comparability of population differentiation among markers and study systems. I argue that a simple differentiation metric displaying intuitive properties, the absolute allele frequency difference AFD, provides a valuable alternative to FST. I provide a general definition of AFD applicable to both bi- and multi-allelic markers and conclude by making recommendations on the sample sizes needed to achieve robust differentiation estimates using AFD.

scholarly journals An Overview of the Helminths of Moor Frog Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842 (Amphibia: Anura) in the Volga Basin

Diversity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Igor V. Chikhlyaev ◽  
Alexander B. Ruchin
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Position ◽  
Helminth Fauna ◽  
Helminth Species ◽  
Volga Basin ◽  
Rana Arvalis ◽  
Amphibian Species ◽  
Volga River ◽  
Spirometra Erinacei ◽  
First Time ◽  
Moor Frog

This is the first review of the helminth fauna of the moor frog Rana arvalis Nilsson, 1842 from the Volga river basin (Russia). The article summarizes the authors’ and literature data on the helminthic fauna of this species. The method of complete helminthological dissection was used. Thirthy-eight helminth species were recorded from three classes: Cestoda (1), Trematoda (28), and Chromadorea (9). Nine helminth species are new to the moor frog in Russia: trematodes Gorgodera varsoviensis Sinitzin, 1905, Strigea falconis Szidat, 1928, larvae, Neodiplostomum spathoides Dubois, 1937, larvae, Tylodelphys excavata (Rudolphi, 1803), larvae, Pharyngostomum cordatum (Diesing, 1850), larvae, Astiotrema monticelli Stossich, 1904, larvae and Encyclometra colubrimurorum (Rudolphi, 1819), larvae, nematodes Strongyloides spiralis Grabda-Kazubska, 1978 and Icosiella neglecta (Diesing, 1851). The cestode Spirometra erinacei (Rudolphi, 1918), larvae were observed of this amphibian species in the Volga basin for the first time. The nematodes Rhabdias bufonis, Oswaldocruzia filiformis, Cosmocerca ornata and the trematode Haplometra cylindracea form the core of the helminth fauna of the moor frog. Information on species of helminths includes systematic position, localization, areas of detection, type and scheme of life cycle, geographical distribution, and degree of specificity to host amphibians.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document