50/500 or 100/1000 debate is not about the time frame - Reply to Rosenfeld
Richard Frankham, Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Barry W. Brook
TL;DR
This paper clarifies and corrects misconceptions in Rosenfeld's 2014 letter regarding the debate on conservation genetics, emphasizing the importance of accurate interpretation of time frames in genetic diversity discussions.
Contribution
The authors address and rectify inaccuracies in Rosenfeld's response, clarifying the debate on genetic diversity and conservation time frames.
Findings
Rosenfeld's interpretation of the debate is misleading
Clarification of the actual discussion points in conservation genetics
Emphasis on accurate understanding of time frames in genetic studies
Abstract
The Letter from Rosenfeld (2014, Biological Conservation) in response to Jamieson and Allendorf (2012, Trends in Ecology and Evolution) and Frankham et al. (2014, Biological Conservation) and related papers is misleading in places and requires clarification and correction. We provide those here.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and History of Science