1999
DOI: 10.1007/s001220051136
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of reforestation methods on genetic diversity of lodgepole pine: an assessment using microsatellite and randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
55
4
2

Year Published

2001
2001
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(67 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
6
55
4
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The mean number of alleles, observed and expected heterozygosities for SSR loci (A=11-36; H o =0.549-0.718; H e =0.877-0.944; see Electronic supplementary materials, Appendix 1) were also relatively higher than those estimated with the same type and number of markers in conifers with wide geographical distributions, such as Larix occidentalis (A=5.5, H o =0.521, H e =0.580; Khasa et al 2006), Pinus strobus (A=9.6, H o =0.522, H e =0.607; Rajora et al 2000;Marquardt and Epperson 2004), Pinus contorta (A=21.0, H e =0.425; Thomas et al 1999), Picea glauca (A=16.4, H o =0.649, H e =0.851; Rajora et al 2005), and also P. menziesii (A=7.5, H e =0.673; Amarasinghe and Carlson 2002) studied earlier. The difference can be explained by the fact that the SSR loci in our study were preselected as the most polymorphic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…The mean number of alleles, observed and expected heterozygosities for SSR loci (A=11-36; H o =0.549-0.718; H e =0.877-0.944; see Electronic supplementary materials, Appendix 1) were also relatively higher than those estimated with the same type and number of markers in conifers with wide geographical distributions, such as Larix occidentalis (A=5.5, H o =0.521, H e =0.580; Khasa et al 2006), Pinus strobus (A=9.6, H o =0.522, H e =0.607; Rajora et al 2000;Marquardt and Epperson 2004), Pinus contorta (A=21.0, H e =0.425; Thomas et al 1999), Picea glauca (A=16.4, H o =0.649, H e =0.851; Rajora et al 2005), and also P. menziesii (A=7.5, H e =0.673; Amarasinghe and Carlson 2002) studied earlier. The difference can be explained by the fact that the SSR loci in our study were preselected as the most polymorphic.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…Neither the mode of seed harvest nor selective effects prior to or after the establishment of plantations caused noticeable losses of diversity at the observed nuclear gene markers or chloroplast haplotypes (see below). No significant impact of the regeneration method (natural regeneration versus plantation) on levels of genetic diversity at nSSRs was also reported by Thomas et al (1999) for P. contorta.…”
Section: Genetic Variation Within Populationsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…The assessment of genetic variation within populations at nSSRs often revealed higher (e.g. P. pinaster: Mariette et al, 2001; P. contorta: Thomas et al, 1999;P. canariensis: Navascus and Emerson, 2007) or comparable (e.g.…”
Section: Genetic Variation Within Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adopting population-based approaches, Mariette et al (2001) Correlations between diversity estimates were low, except when performed at the regional or subspecific levels rather than at the population level (Mariette et al, , 2002a). If we also consider RAPDs vs microsatellites comparisons, Sun et al (1998) reported a significantly positive correlation between diversity levels obtained with both markers within Elymus fibrosus populations, whereas in their study on Pinus contorta, Thomas et al (1999) found a positive but nonsignificant correlation (recalculated by Mariette, 2001). Concerning estimates of population differentiation, Cagigas et al (1999), on Salmo trutta, and Huang et al (2000), on Haliotis rubra, found that RAPD and microsatellites were in agreement.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 91%