A standard conservation strategy for plant genetic resources integrates in situ (on-farm or wild) and ex situ (gene or field bank) approaches. Gene bank managers collect ex situ accessions that represent a comprehensive snap shot of the genetic diversity of in situ populations at a given time and place. Although simple in theory, achieving complementary in situ and ex situ holdings is challenging. Using Trifolium thompsonii as a model insect-pollinated herbaceous perennial species, we used AFLP markers to compare genetic diversity and structure of ex situ accessions collected at two time periods (1995, 2004) from four locations, with their corresponding in situ populations sampled in 2009. Our goal was to assess the complementarity of the two approaches. We examined how gene flow, selection and genetic drift contributed to population change. Across locations, we found no difference in diversity between ex situ and in situ samples. One population showed a decline in genetic diversity over the 15 years studied. Population genetic differentiation among the four locations was significant, but weak. Association tests suggested infrequent, long distance gene flow. Selection and drift occurred, but differences due to spatial effects were three times as strong as differences attributed to temporal effects, and suggested recollection efforts could occur at intervals greater than fifteen years. An effective collecting strategy for insect pollinated herbaceous perennial species was to sample >150 plants, equalize maternal contribution, and sample along random transects with sufficient space between plants to minimize intrafamilial sampling. Quantifying genetic change between ex situ and in situ accessions allows genetic resource managers to validate ex situ collecting and maintenance protocols, develop appropriate recollection intervals, and provide an early detection mechanism for identifying problematic conditions that can be addressed to prevent further decline in vulnerable in situ populations.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2015.
All research outputs
#11,914,949
of 34,410,798 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#103,546
of 224,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,779
of 275,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,281
of 4,993 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 275,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,993 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
