Publication: Is MHC diversity a better marker for conservation than neutral genetic diversity? A case study of two contrasting dolphin populations
Is MHC diversity a better marker for conservation than neutral genetic diversity? A case study of two contrasting dolphin populations
Date
Date
Date
Citations
Manlik, O., Krützen, M., Kopps, A. M., Mann, J., Bejder, L., Allen, S. J., Frère, C., Connor, R. C., & Sherwin, W. B. (2019). Is MHC diversity a better marker for conservation than neutral genetic diversity? A case study of two contrasting dolphin populations. Ecology and Evolution, 9(12), 6986–6998. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5265
Abstract
Abstract
Abstract
Genetic diversity is essential for populations to adapt to changing environments. Measures of genetic diversity are often based on selectively neutral markers, such as microsatellites. Genetic diversity to guide conservation management, however, is better reflected by adaptive markers, including genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Our aim was to assess MHC and neutral genetic diversity in two contrasting bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) populations in Western Australia—one apparently viable population with high r
Additional indexing
Creators (Authors)
Volume
Volume
Volume
Number
Number
Number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page range/Item number
Page end
Page end
Page end
Item Type
Item Type
Item Type
In collections
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Dewey Decimal Classifikation
Language
Language
Language
Publication date
Publication date
Publication date
Date available
Date available
Date available
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
ISSN or e-ISSN
OA Status
OA Status
OA Status
Free Access at
Free Access at
Free Access at
Publisher DOI
Citations
Manlik, O., Krützen, M., Kopps, A. M., Mann, J., Bejder, L., Allen, S. J., Frère, C., Connor, R. C., & Sherwin, W. B. (2019). Is MHC diversity a better marker for conservation than neutral genetic diversity? A case study of two contrasting dolphin populations. Ecology and Evolution, 9(12), 6986–6998. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5265