2014
DOI: 10.1007/s11295-014-0702-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biotic and abiotic factors affecting the genetic structure and diversity of butternut in the southern Appalachian Mountains, USA

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nair, Kostichka & J.E. Kuntz) Broders & Boland (Diaporthales: Gnomoniaceae), significant historical gene flow exists among butternut stands [27,28]. On the other hand, major shifts in population demography resulting from a rapid population decline can result in substantial loss of genetic diversity and increased genetic differentiation [29,30].…”
Section: The Host Plant Speciesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nair, Kostichka & J.E. Kuntz) Broders & Boland (Diaporthales: Gnomoniaceae), significant historical gene flow exists among butternut stands [27,28]. On the other hand, major shifts in population demography resulting from a rapid population decline can result in substantial loss of genetic diversity and increased genetic differentiation [29,30].…”
Section: The Host Plant Speciesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This population was also phenotyped and genotyped but due to its small size was of limited use. A random sample of 55 Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP) butternuts (Parks et al 2014) was genotyped as an out-group for relatedness and population genetic analyses. (Table 1).…”
Section: Study Sitesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Locations were recorded multiple times to avoid inaccurate estimates due to dense summer canopy. To capture as much variation as possible in disease symptoms, several assessments of disease severity were performed using previously established criteria (Ostry et al 1996;Parks et al 2014) at the same time as leaf sampling in SLOW and KMSF. Tree health was assessed by counting total number of cankers below breast height (1.5 m), number of cankers within 10 cm of the soil line (basal cankers), estimating the percentage of main sun-exposed crown limbs killed by cankers, and visually estimating the percentage of the trunk circumference girdled by cankers.…”
Section: Study Sitesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations