Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Genetic drift

Genetic drift is a fundamental mechanism of evolution characterized by random fluctuations in the frequency of alleles (variants of a gene) within a population, arising from chance events rather than adaptive pressures.^[1] Unlike natural selection, which favors advantageous traits, genetic drift operates through sampling error in finite populations, where the alleles passed to the next generation may not perfectly represent the current generation's composition simply due to random variation in reproductive success.^[2] This process is one of the four primary forces of evolution, alongside natural selection, mutation, and gene flow, and it tends to reduce genetic diversity over time by increasing the likelihood of allele fixation (reaching 100% frequency) or loss (reaching 0% frequency).^[3] In each generation, genetic drift manifests as a nondirectional change, meaning it does not consistently push populations toward higher fitness; instead, it can lead to the dominance of neutral or even slightly deleterious alleles purely by chance.^[4] The magnitude of drift is inversely related to population size: in large populations, random fluctuations average out and have minimal impact, but in small populations, drift can cause rapid and significant shifts in allele frequencies, potentially driving evolutionary divergence between isolated groups.^[5] For instance, the founder effect occurs when a small subset of individuals establishes a new population, carrying only a limited sample of the original genetic variation, which can result in distinct allele frequencies compared to the source population.^[3] Another prominent form is the bottleneck effect, where a population undergoes a drastic reduction in size due to environmental catastrophes or other events, leaving a random surviving subset whose alleles disproportionately influence future generations.^[2] Both the founder and bottleneck effects exemplify how genetic drift accelerates the loss of genetic variation, increasing homozygosity and potentially elevating the risk of inbreeding depression in affected populations.^[6] These dynamics underscore genetic drift's role in shaping evolutionary trajectories, particularly in fragmented or endangered species, where it can counteract the effects of gene flow or selection by promoting random genetic differentiation.^[7]

Introduction and Fundamentals

Definition and Basic Principles

Genetic drift refers to the random fluctuations in allele frequencies within a population caused by sampling error during reproduction, occurring exclusively in finite populations and independent of any differences in allele fitness.^[8] In population genetics, alleles represent variant forms of a gene, while genotypes are the specific combinations of alleles an individual carries; these frequencies are expected to remain stable under idealized conditions described by the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, a null model that assumes an infinite population size to eliminate drift, random mating, no mutation, no migration, and no natural selection.^[9]^[10] The basic principles of genetic drift stem from the stochastic nature of gamete sampling in each generation, where the next generation's gene pool is a random subset of the parental one, leading to unpredictable shifts in allele proportions regardless of adaptive value.^[11] This effect is inversely proportional to population size: in small populations, sampling error is more pronounced, amplifying drift's impact, whereas large populations experience minimal fluctuations.^[12] Over successive generations, drift erodes genetic variation by driving alleles toward fixation (frequency of 1) or loss (frequency of 0), ultimately reducing heterozygosity and diversity within the population.^[13] Within the framework of the neutral theory of molecular evolution, genetic drift plays a central role by affecting neutral alleles—those with no significant impact on fitness—equally, suggesting that much of the observed genetic variation and evolutionary change at the molecular level results from drift rather than selection.^[14]^[15] For instance, in a small population of just 10 individuals undergoing random mating, an allele initially at 50% frequency might drift to 70% or 30% in the next generation purely by chance in the sampling of gametes, illustrating how drift can rapidly alter frequencies without any selective pressure.^[16] Unlike deterministic evolutionary forces such as natural selection, drift is a non-adaptive process driven solely by randomness.^[8]

Analogy with Sampling Processes

Building on the random fluctuations in allele frequencies described in the basic principles of genetic drift, simple analogies from everyday sampling processes provide an intuitive way to understand how random chance in reproduction leads to changes in genetic composition over generations. One classic analogy is the marble jar, where the parental generation is represented by a jar filled with marbles of different colors, each color symbolizing a distinct allele at a genetic locus. To simulate the formation of the next generation, an equal number of marbles are drawn randomly from the jar with replacement, corresponding to the finite population size; the drawn marbles then become the new jar for the subsequent generation. This process reveals how, even with an unbiased draw, the proportion of each color can shift unpredictably due to sampling variation—for instance, a slight overrepresentation of one color in one draw can compound in later rounds, illustrating the stochastic shifts in allele frequencies without any influence from viability or adaptation.^[3] To see this in action, consider starting with a jar containing 50 marbles: 25 red (allele A) and 25 blue (allele a), representing a population at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for a diallelic locus. In the first generation, a random draw of 50 marbles might yield 28 red and 22 blue purely by chance, altering the frequency of allele A from 0.5 to 0.56. Repeating the process for the second generation from this new composition could result in 32 red and 18 blue (frequency now 0.64), or conversely, a drop to 20 red and 30 blue (frequency 0.40). By the third generation, these deviations often amplify further, potentially leading toward complete fixation (all red) or loss (all blue) of one allele, demonstrating how finite population sizes amplify random sampling effects over time.^[17] A complementary analogy involves coin flips, portraying the inheritance of alleles during reproduction as a series of independent fair coin tosses for each offspring. For a heterozygous parent (Aa), each child has a 50% chance of inheriting A (heads) or a (tails), akin to a coin landing heads or tails. In a large population, the outcomes average out close to 50-50, but in a small group—say, four offspring—the results might skew to three heads and one tail (75% A), introducing variance in the next generation's allele frequency. Over multiple generations, this cumulative randomness mimics a random walk, where allele frequencies drift away from their starting point, often resulting in complete loss or fixation of alleles by chance alone.^[18] These sampling analogies emphasize the inherently probabilistic and directionless nature of genetic drift, arising solely from the finite size of populations and the randomness of gamete transmission, independent of any selective advantages.

Probabilistic Foundations

Allele Frequency Dynamics

Genetic drift manifests as random fluctuations in allele frequencies across generations due to sampling processes in finite populations. In a diploid population of size N, the frequency of an allele p in generation t+1 is determined by binomial sampling of $2N gametes from the parental generation with frequency p_t, where each gamete is drawn independently with success probability p_t. This sampling introduces stochasticity, as the number of copies of the allele in the next generation follows a binomial distribution \text{Bin}(2N, p_t). The binomial probability mass function underpins this randomness: the probability of observing k successes (allele copies) in $2N trials is \Pr(K = k) = \binom{2N}{k} p_t^k (1 - p_t)^{2N - k}, which captures the discrete nature of allele transmission and the potential for deviations from the expected frequency p_t. As a result, the change in allele frequency \Delta p = p_{t+1} - p_t has an expected value of zero under pure drift, but exhibits variance that drives divergence over time. For diploid populations, this variance is approximated as \text{Var}(\Delta p) \approx \frac{p(1-p)}{2N}, highlighting how smaller population sizes N amplify fluctuations, as the standard deviation \sqrt{\text{Var}(\Delta p)} scales inversely with \sqrt{N}. These dynamics are modulated by the effective population size N_e, which represents the size of an ideal population that would experience the same rate of drift as the actual population, accounting for deviations such as unequal sex ratios or variance in reproductive success. In populations with differing numbers of breeding males N_m and females N_f, N_e is reduced relative to the census size, with the formula N_e \approx \frac{4 N_m N_f}{N_m + N_f} quantifying how imbalances—such as a scarcity of one sex—increase drift strength by elevating sampling variance. This adjustment ensures that predictions of allele frequency changes align with observed genetic variation in non-ideal populations.

Role of Sampling Error

Genetic drift arises primarily from sampling error in the transmission of alleles across generations in finite populations. The next generation is formed by a random sample of gametes produced by the parental generation, which draws from an effectively infinite array of possible gametes but is limited by the finite number of reproducing individuals. This imperfect sampling leads to random deviations in allele frequencies from those in the parental population, as the realized sample does not exactly match the expected proportions.^[8] The primary sources of this sampling error lie in two key aspects of sexual reproduction: the stochastic variance introduced by Mendelian segregation during meiosis, where alleles are randomly assorted into gametes, and the random union of those gametes during fertilization to form zygotes. Importantly, these processes operate without bias toward alleles of greater or lesser adaptive value, treating all variants equally in terms of transmission probability.^[19] Sampling error in genetic drift differs fundamentally from other random evolutionary processes, such as mutation, which entails infrequent, probabilistic alterations to the genetic sequence itself, or migration, which incorporates alleles from outside the population. In contrast, sampling error is intrinsic to the reproductive mechanism of finite populations and manifests routinely in every generation through the resampling of existing alleles. The scale of sampling error is captured by the variance in the change of allele frequency (Δp) per generation, expressed as σ² = p(1 - p) / (2N), where p denotes the allele's frequency in the parental generation and N is the effective population size. This formula quantifies the expected random fluctuation around the mean frequency, with genetic drift emerging as the accumulated impact of such variance over successive generations, potentially driving alleles toward fixation or loss.^[19]

Mathematical Frameworks

Wright–Fisher Model

The Wright–Fisher model represents a foundational discrete-generation framework for understanding genetic drift in population genetics. It was developed independently by Ronald A. Fisher in his 1922 paper "On the Dominance Ratio," where he introduced the stochastic treatment of gene frequency changes due to random sampling, and by Sewall Wright in his 1931 paper "Evolution in Mendelian Populations," which formalized the role of random drift in finite populations.^[20]^[21] The model describes an idealized diploid population of constant size N, comprising $2N alleles at a single autosomal locus with two variants, say A and a. The next generation is formed by sampling $2N alleles with replacement from the current generation's allele pool, where each allele is drawn independently according to the current frequency p of A. This binomial sampling process captures the random fluctuations in allele frequencies characteristic of genetic drift under neutrality.^[22]^[21] Key assumptions include a fixed population size with no demographic variation, absence of natural selection, mutation, or migration, random mating that produces a large pool of gametes, and strictly non-overlapping generations. If X_t denotes the number of A alleles in generation t, then the number in the next generation follows a binomial distribution:

X_{t+1} \sim \text{Binomial}(2N, p_t),

where p_t = X_t / (2N) is the frequency of A in generation t. This setup simulates neutral evolution by modeling reproduction as a lottery among gametes, without regard to genotype.^[22]^[20] The change in allele frequency \Delta p = p_{t+1} - p_t has an expected value of zero, indicating no systematic bias in drift:

\mathbb{E}[\Delta p] = 0,

reflecting the neutrality assumption. The variance of the change, which quantifies the magnitude of drift per generation, is derived from the binomial variance formula:

\text{Var}(\Delta p) = \frac{p(1-p)}{2N}.

This variance decreases with larger effective population size N, illustrating how drift is stronger in small populations and arises solely from sampling error in finite gamete pools. The model thus provides a probabilistic basis for simulating allele trajectories over discrete time steps.^[22]^[21]

Moran Model

The Moran model provides a continuous-time framework for analyzing genetic drift in a finite population of constant size N, serving as an overlapping-generations counterpart to discrete-generation models. Introduced by Patrick A. P. Moran in 1958, it models the stochastic replacement of individuals to capture sampling variance in allele frequencies without generational boundaries. The model assumes a haploid population where each of the N individuals carries one allele at a biallelic locus, with neutrality implying no fitness differences between alleles. The dynamics follow birth-death processes where events occur continuously: one individual is selected uniformly at random to die (at total rate N, or rate 1 per individual), and independently, one individual is selected uniformly at random to reproduce, producing an identical offspring that replaces the deceased. Let i be the current number of individuals carrying allele A (with frequency p = i/N). An increase to i+1 occurs if an A-carrying individual reproduces and an a-carrying individual dies; a decrease to i-1 occurs if an a-carrying individual reproduces and an A-carrying individual dies. The transition rates are thus symmetric under neutrality:

\lambda_i = \frac{i(N-i)}{N}, \quad \mu_i = \frac{i(N-i)}{N}

where \lambda_i is the rate to i+1 and \mu_i is the rate to i-1. The expected change in p per unit time is zero, but stochastic fluctuations drive drift toward fixation or loss.^[23] ^[24] In the diffusion approximation, obtained by scaling time and population size appropriately, the Moran model converges to a Wright-Fisher diffusion with effective population size N, yielding a variance in allele frequency change per unit time of approximately p(1-p)/N. This equivalence holds for neutral drift despite the differing generational structures, with the Moran's overlapping design accelerating events relative to discrete models (drift variance twice as large per unscaled unit time).^[25] ^[26] For the neutral case, the stationary distribution of i is uniform over \{0, 1, \dots, N\}, corresponding to a uniform distribution on [0,1] for p, reflecting equal probability across all configurations in equilibrium.^[27] The Moran's structure offers advantages for exact analysis in small populations, where transition matrices are tridiagonal and solvable via recursions, and it underpins coalescent theory by enabling straightforward backward tracing of lineages through overlapping replacements. ^[28]

Alternative Drift Models

The Cannings model generalizes the Wright-Fisher framework by allowing exchangeable offspring distributions where individuals can produce variable numbers of offspring, while maintaining constant population size and neutrality.^[29] This approach accommodates a broader range of reproductive variances, enabling analysis of how deviations from binomial sampling affect genetic drift rates, such as in cases of skewed fertility.^[26] Unlike fixed-offspring models, it emphasizes the role of exchangeability in ensuring the model's neutrality and facilitates extensions to multiple alleles or non-overlapping generations.^[30] Diffusion approximations provide a continuous-time limit of discrete drift models for large populations, transforming the Wright-Fisher process into a stochastic differential equation that captures allele frequency changes via drift and selection.^[21] Sewall Wright developed this method in the early 1930s, approximating the discrete steps as a diffusion process where the mean change reflects systematic forces and the variance embodies sampling error.^[31] The forward equation, known as the Fokker-Planck equation, governs the probability density f(x, t) of allele frequency x at time t:

\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial x} [M(x) f] + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} [V(x) f],

where M(x) is the drift term (e.g., due to selection) and V(x) = x(1-x)/(2N) is the diffusion variance from genetic drift in a population of size N.^[32] This approximation simplifies computations for large N, revealing long-term behaviors like fixation probabilities without simulating every generation.^[33] Coalescent theory offers a backward-in-time perspective on genetic drift, modeling the ancestry of a sample of genes as a merging process of lineages, which reverses the forward branching of reproduction. John Kingman's coalescent, introduced in 1982, assumes a large, constant-sized population under neutrality, where any pair of lineages coalesces at rate 1 (in scaled time), leading to a binary tree structure for the sample genealogy. This framework efficiently computes probabilities of shared ancestry and allele sharing, decoupling mutation from coalescence to analyze diversity patterns.^[34] It has become foundational for inferring demographic history from genetic data, as the expected time to the most recent common ancestor scales with sample size rather than total population size.^[35] In structured populations, drift interacts with migration, leading to models that incorporate spatial heterogeneity beyond panmictic assumptions. The island model, proposed by Sewall Wright in 1931, envisions a set of discrete demes connected by symmetric migration, where local drift dominates within demes but gene flow homogenizes allele frequencies across the metapopulation.^[36] The stepping-stone model, developed by Motoo Kimura in 1953, arranges demes in a linear or lattice configuration with migration only between neighbors, amplifying clinal variation and isolation-by-distance effects under drift.^[37] These models quantify how spatial structure reduces effective population size and alters drift rates, with fixation probabilities depending on migration rates m relative to local size N.^[38] Post-2000 developments have integrated whole-genome sequencing with drift models to estimate effective population size N_e from SNP data, accounting for linkage disequilibrium and demographic fluctuations. Methods like the linkage disequilibrium-based estimator use genome-wide heterozygosity decay to infer recent N_e, revealing how drift shapes diversity in large datasets from species like humans or marine fish.^[39] Tools such as SNeP apply temporal sampling of SNPs to reconstruct N_e trajectories, highlighting non-stationary drift in expanding populations. These approaches adjust classic models for genomic realities, such as overlapping generations or selection interference, improving accuracy in conservation genetics.^[40]

Population-Level Consequences

Fixation and Loss Processes

Genetic drift in finite populations inevitably leads to the fixation or loss of alleles, where fixation occurs when an allele reaches a frequency of 1 and loss when it reaches 0. This process arises because allele frequencies undergo random fluctuations without any deterministic bias in the absence of selection, mutation, or migration, resulting in absorption at one of the boundaries. In the Wright-Fisher model, the trajectory of a neutral allele's frequency behaves as a martingale, meaning its expected value remains unchanged across generations despite the variance introduced by sampling, which propels it toward eventual absorption.^[21] For a neutral allele with initial frequency p, the probability of ultimate fixation equals p, while the probability of loss is $1 - p. This fundamental result demonstrates the unbiased nature of drift: an allele's fate depends solely on its starting proportion, with rare alleles (low p) far more likely to be lost than fixed. Kimura derived this probability using diffusion approximations to the Wright-Fisher process, providing a precise quantification applicable to large populations.^[41] A direct measure of drift's erosive effect on genetic variation is the decline in heterozygosity, which increases homozygosity over time. The expected heterozygosity H_t after t generations is expressed as

H_t = H_0 \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N}\right)^t

where H_0 is the initial heterozygosity and N is the effective population size. This recursive formula shows heterozygosity decaying geometrically at a rate inversely proportional to population size, reflecting the cumulative impact of sampling error. Wright introduced this relation in his analysis of random genetic drift, highlighting how even modest finite sizes lead to substantial loss of variation.^[21] The acceleration of homozygosity under drift is particularly pronounced in small or structured populations, where the inbreeding effective population size N_e serves as a key parameter. N_e represents the size of an idealized population that would experience the same rate of inbreeding (or drift-induced homozygosity) as the actual population, accounting for factors like unequal sex ratios, overlapping generations, or subpopulation structure. In such cases, drift proceeds faster than in a census population of equivalent size, amplifying the approach to fixation or loss. Wright formalized this concept to bridge theoretical models with real-world deviations, enabling predictions of drift's intensity.^[21] From a genealogical perspective, repeated fixation and loss events under drift erode overall genetic diversity, culminating in monomorphic states at each locus. Over sufficient generations, all lineages in the population coalesce to a single common ancestor for any given gene, as random sampling eliminates alternative lineages. This loss of diversity underscores drift's role in homogenizing populations, with implications for the persistence of variation only through recurrent mutation. The neutral theory of molecular evolution posits that the majority of alleles fixed in natural populations are selectively neutral and ascend to fixation via genetic drift alone. Kimura developed this framework to explain observed molecular substitution rates, which exceed what selection could accommodate without prohibitive costs, implying that most evolutionary changes at the genetic level result from random drift rather than adaptive processes.^[42]

Rate of Genetic Drift

The rate of genetic drift is quantified by the expected squared change in allele frequency per generation, E[(\Delta p)^2] = \frac{p(1-p)}{2N}, where p is the frequency of the allele in question and N is the effective population size of the diploid population. This expression captures the random sampling variance inherent to finite populations, as derived from binomial sampling of gametes under idealized conditions. The expected change in allele frequency itself is zero, E[\Delta p] = 0, emphasizing that drift causes non-directional fluctuations rather than systematic shifts. The rate depends strongly on population size, halving with each doubling of N, which underscores why genetic drift exerts the greatest influence in small populations where sampling error is pronounced. Additionally, the term p(1-p) reaches its maximum value of 0.25 when p = 0.5, meaning the variance—and thus the rate of drift—is strongest for alleles at intermediate frequencies, accelerating their random divergence from neutrality. For alleles near fixation (p \approx 0 or $1), the rate diminishes, reflecting reduced opportunity for sampling variation. Over t generations, these per-generation variances accumulate approximately independently, yielding the total variance in allele frequency as \text{Var}(p_t) = p(1-p) \left[ 1 - \left(1 - \frac{1}{2N}\right)^t \right]. This formula illustrates the progressive erosion of genetic diversity due to ongoing drift, approaching p(1-p) as t becomes large relative to $2N, at which point substantial loss or fixation becomes likely. In empirical studies using molecular data, the rate of genetic drift is often inferred indirectly through the decay of linkage disequilibrium (LD) across genomic loci, as drift generates LD by random associations while recombination erodes it over generations; the observed LD extent inversely correlates with N.^[43] For instance, in humans, whole-genome sequencing analyses estimate a long-term historical effective population size of approximately 10,000, though this has fluctuated across evolutionary eras, with reductions during demographic bottlenecks such as the out-of-Africa expansion around 50,000–70,000 years ago.^[44]

Time to Fixation or Loss

In the absence of other evolutionary forces, the expected time for a neutral allele to reach either fixation (frequency 1) or loss (frequency 0) under genetic drift, starting from initial frequency p, is approximated using the diffusion method as

\bar{T}(p) = -4N_e \frac{p \ln p + (1-p) \ln (1-p)}{p(1-p)}

generations, where N_e is the effective population size.^[45] This formula, derived from the Wright–Fisher model, highlights that the time scales linearly with population size and is maximized when p = 0.5, reflecting the longest persistence of segregating variation near intermediate frequencies. For alleles starting near the boundaries (low or high p), the expected time shortens considerably, as drift more rapidly drives them to absorption.^[45] Conditional on eventual fixation, the mean time for a neutral allele is approximately $4N_e generations when starting from the frequency of a new mutant, p = 1/(2N_e). The variance in fixation time increases with N_e, but times are generally shorter in smaller populations due to stronger drift; for instance, alleles near p = 0.5 take longer to resolve in large populations compared to small ones, where rapid fluctuations accelerate absorption.^[45] Simulations of the Wright–Fisher model confirm these analytical predictions, showing that empirical distributions of absorption times closely match the diffusion approximation for neutral alleles across a range of N_e and initial p, with minor deviations only in very small populations where discrete effects dominate. In conservation biology, these times inform predictions of rare variant loss, where low-frequency alleles (p \ll 0.5) are expected to vanish quickly in small populations, increasing risks of reduced adaptive potential and inbreeding depression if effective sizes fall below 500–1000.

Interactions with Evolutionary Forces

Comparison to Natural Selection

Genetic drift and natural selection represent two primary evolutionary forces, but they operate through fundamentally different mechanisms. Genetic drift is a random, stochastic process driven by sampling error in finite populations, causing allele frequencies to fluctuate unpredictably without regard to an allele's impact on fitness; it is most pronounced in small populations where chance events can lead to fixation or loss of alleles.^[46] In contrast, natural selection is a non-random, deterministic process that systematically favors alleles conferring higher fitness, increasing their frequency while reducing that of less fit variants, thereby directing adaptive evolution.^[46] These differences mean that drift erodes genetic variation neutrally, whereas selection preserves or enhances variation tied to adaptive traits. The relative strength of drift versus selection hinges on population size and the magnitude of fitness differences. Drift predominates when the absolute selection coefficient |s| is smaller than 1/(2N), where N is the effective population size, effectively neutralizing weakly selected mutations and allowing random fixation.^[47] This threshold underpins the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution, developed by Tomoko Ohta, which argues that many slightly deleterious or advantageous mutations at the molecular level behave as nearly neutral due to drift overpowering weak selection, particularly in smaller populations.^[48] In such regimes, evolutionary changes at the genetic level are governed more by chance than by adaptive pressures. Interactions between drift and selection yield distinct outcomes depending on their balance. In small populations, drift can overwhelm weak selection, causing even mildly advantageous alleles to be lost or deleterious ones fixed by chance. However, strong positive selection can counteract drift through genetic hitchhiking, where neutral or nearly neutral alleles linked to a beneficial mutation rise in frequency during a selective sweep, reducing linked genetic diversity.^[49] For example, neutral mutations fix via drift with a probability of approximately 1/(2N), reflecting pure randomness, while advantageous alleles with small s fix at roughly 2s, demonstrating selection's directional pull. Detecting these forces empirically often involves tests like the McDonald-Kreitman approach, which contrasts polymorphism within species (influenced by drift and segregating variation) to fixed divergence between species (shaped by selection). Under neutrality and drift alone, the ratio of synonymous to nonsynonymous changes should be similar for polymorphisms and fixed differences; deviations, such as excess nonsynonymous fixes, signal positive selection overriding drift.

Influence of Mutation on Drift

Mutation introduces new genetic variants into a population, counteracting the loss of diversity caused by genetic drift, thereby establishing a dynamic balance that sustains genetic variation over time. In neutral contexts, recurrent mutations replenish alleles that drift would otherwise eliminate, preventing the complete erosion of polymorphism. This interaction is particularly evident in the mutation-drift equilibrium, where the expected heterozygosity H at a locus is given by the formula H = \frac{4N_e \mu}{1 + 4N_e \mu}, with N_e denoting the effective population size and \mu the mutation rate per generation. This equilibrium arises under the infinite alleles model, which assumes that each mutation creates a novel allele, leading to a stationary distribution of allele frequencies that balances mutational input against drift-induced loss. The effects of mutation on drift are twofold: it continuously generates variation that drift erodes, while neutral mutations themselves accumulate in populations at a rate equal to the mutation rate \mu, independent of population size. Under genetic drift alone, without mutation, polymorphisms would eventually fix or be lost, but recurrent mutations extend these dynamics indefinitely for allele classes, as new instances of the same variant type continually arise. In the infinite alleles model, this results in a stationary distribution where the probability of any specific allele persisting forever is zero, yet overall diversity remains stable due to ongoing mutational renewal. These times to loss or fixation are thus prolonged beyond those in pure drift scenarios, maintaining polymorphism on evolutionary timescales. Kimura's neutral theory of molecular evolution posits that the majority of molecular changes observed in genomes result from the drift of selectively neutral mutations, which fix at the rate \mu and drive most evolutionary substitutions. This framework emphasizes that drift, rather than selection, governs the fate of these neutral variants, with mutation serving as the ultimate source of evolutionary novelty. Empirical support comes from genomic analyses showing that neutral evolution aligns with observed substitution rates across species. Recent genomic studies from the 2020s, leveraging whole-genome sequencing of human pedigrees, estimate the germline mutation rate at approximately $1.2 \times 10^{-8} per nucleotide site per generation, with notable variability across genomic regions and individuals. This rate underscores the ongoing input of neutral mutations in humans, where drift in small effective populations (N_e \approx 10^4) interacts with mutation to shape standing variation, as evidenced by diverse heterozygosity levels in modern populations.^[50] Such variability in \mu highlights how mutation-drift dynamics can differ even within species, influencing the persistence of genetic diversity.^[50]

Specific Scenarios and Effects

Population Bottlenecks

A population bottleneck refers to a sudden and severe reduction in the effective population size (N_e) of a species, typically triggered by environmental disasters, disease outbreaks, or human activities that drastically limit the number of surviving individuals. This sharp decline amplifies genetic drift because the rate of allele frequency change due to random sampling is inversely proportional to N_e, effectively increasing the intensity of drift by a factor approximately equal to the ratio of the pre-bottleneck to bottleneck population sizes during the reduction period.^[51]^[52] The primary effects of a bottleneck include accelerated loss of alleles, particularly rare variants that may be entirely eliminated by chance, leading to a substantial reduction in overall genetic diversity and heterozygosity. Heterozygosity declines because the small surviving population represents a non-representative sample of the original gene pool, with the expected proportional loss in heterozygosity after one generation given by approximately \frac{1}{2N_b}, where N_b is the size of the bottlenecked population. Additionally, the reduced diversity promotes increased inbreeding, as mating occurs among more closely related individuals, elevating homozygosity across the genome. The variance in the change of allele frequency (\Delta p) post-bottleneck is boosted to approximately \frac{p(1-p)}{2N_b}, which scales roughly as \frac{1}{2N_b} and underscores the heightened stochastic shifts in genetic composition.^[51]^[53]^[52] Even brief bottlenecks spanning just one or two generations can impose lasting damage, as the alleles lost through intensified drift are permanently removed from the gene pool without subsequent mutation or migration to replenish them, resulting in long-term deficits in genetic variation that persist even after population recovery. This enduring impact heightens vulnerability to future environmental stresses and reduces adaptive potential. A well-documented real-world example is the African cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), which experienced a severe bottleneck around 10,000–12,000 years ago, leading to near-complete monomorphism at many loci and inferred low genetic variation from allozyme, microsatellite, and genomic analyses.^[53]^[54]

Founder Effects

The founder effect represents a specific manifestation of genetic drift that arises when a small subset of individuals from a larger source population establishes a new population in a previously unoccupied habitat. In this process, the founding group samples only a fraction of the source population's genetic diversity, resulting in initial allele frequencies that deviate randomly from those in the original population due to stochastic sampling error. This non-representative sampling occurs because the number of founders (N_f) is typically much smaller than the source population size (N_s), amplifying the role of chance in determining the genetic composition of the new group.^[13]^[55] One primary consequence of the founder effect is an immediate reduction in genetic variation within the new population, as rare alleles from the source may be entirely absent in the founders. This diminished variation intensifies genetic drift in the initial generations, given the small effective population size, which accelerates the random loss of alleles or the fixation of others, potentially leading to unique genetic profiles not reflective of the source. Such rapid changes can increase the risk of inbreeding depression if the population remains isolated.^[13]^[55]^[56] Classic examples illustrate these dynamics. In Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands, a small founding population of South American ancestors colonized the archipelago, leading to reduced genetic diversity and subsequent divergence among island populations through intensified drift and selection on beak morphology. Similarly, on Pingelap Atoll in Micronesia, a typhoon in 1775 reduced the population to about 20 survivors, one of whom carried a mutation for achromatopsia (complete color blindness); genetic drift in this founder group elevated the allele frequency, resulting in up to 10% of modern inhabitants being affected.^[57]^[58] In conservation biology, founder effects pose significant risks to small translocated groups, such as endangered species reintroduced to new habitats, where limited numbers of individuals can lead to eroded genetic diversity, heightened vulnerability to environmental changes, and long-term population decline. To mitigate this, translocation strategies often aim to use larger founder groups or multiple sources to preserve variation.^[59]

Historical Context

Origins of the Concept

The concept of genetic drift emerged as evolutionary biologists sought to reconcile Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection with the principles of Mendelian inheritance in the early 20th century. Implicit precursors to the idea can be found in Darwin's 1868 theory of pangenesis, which posited that tiny particles called gemmules, emitted from all parts of the body, carry hereditary information to the reproductive cells, potentially leading to random variations in offspring traits through uneven contributions and blending. This mechanism, while not explicitly addressing population-level stochastic changes, highlighted the role of chance in generating heritable variation, setting a conceptual foundation for later recognition of non-adaptive evolutionary processes.^[60] In the 1920s, foundational mathematical treatments of random changes in gene frequencies began to appear amid efforts to quantify evolutionary forces under Mendelian genetics. Sewall Wright's early work on inbreeding laid key groundwork, particularly in his 1921 analysis of how restricted mating systems alter genetic composition in populations, demonstrating that small group sizes amplify irregular fluctuations in allele frequencies due to sampling effects.^[61] Similarly, Ronald A. Fisher, in his 1922 paper, introduced stochastic models for genotype frequencies, showing how random sampling of gametes in finite populations causes deviations from expected ratios, even without selection.^[20] J.B.S. Haldane complemented this in 1924 by incorporating random survival probabilities into his mathematical framework for selection, illustrating how chance events in reproduction could independently shift allele proportions in populations.^[62] These contributions emphasized random processes as distinct from adaptive forces, fueling debates on the relative roles of chance versus directed evolution in the emerging synthesis of genetics and Darwinism. The term "genetic drift" was first used by Sewall Wright in his 1931 paper "Evolution in Mendelian Populations", and further described in his 1932 presentation at the Sixth International Congress of Genetics as random fluctuations in gene frequencies driven by small effective population sizes, often termed the "Sewall Wright effect."^[63]^[64] In this seminal address, Wright integrated mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection, arguing that drift becomes a dominant force in isolated or reduced populations, countering the prevailing emphasis on natural selection alone.^[64] This formulation not only named the phenomenon but also positioned it centrally in the ongoing integration of Mendelism with Darwinian evolution, highlighting random sampling as a counterpoint to adaptive mechanisms and paving the way for formal models like the Wright-Fisher process.^[65]

Key Developments and Contributors

In 1932, Sewall Wright proposed the shifting balance theory, which integrates genetic drift with natural selection and gene flow across metapopulations to explain adaptive evolution.^[64] This three-phase process begins with random drift in semi-isolated subpopulations, potentially shifting them toward higher fitness peaks, followed by selection reinforcing superior genotypes and migration spreading beneficial alleles across the larger population.^[66] Wright's framework emphasized how drift enables populations to escape adaptive valleys that selection alone might not overcome, influencing subsequent models of structured populations.^[67] Building on these ideas, Motoo Kimura introduced the neutral theory of molecular evolution in 1968, positing that most genetic variation at the molecular level arises from neutral mutations fixed by genetic drift rather than adaptive selection.^[42] Kimura argued that the observed high rate of nucleotide substitutions reflects random drift in large populations, with the infinite sites model describing how new mutations accumulate without back-mutations, leading to predictable molecular clocks.^[68] This theory shifted focus from protein-level adaptations to neutral processes dominating genomic evolution, supported by early protein sequence data.^[69] In 1973, Tomoko Ohta extended Kimura's neutral theory with the nearly neutral theory, incorporating slightly deleterious mutations whose fixation depends on population size and weak selection effects.^[48] Ohta proposed that in smaller populations, drift allows these mildly harmful variants to fix more readily, accelerating molecular evolution during speciation or bottlenecks, while larger populations purge them via selection.^[70] This refinement explained discrepancies in substitution rates across taxa and highlighted the interplay between drift intensity and subtle selective pressures.^[71] The 1980s saw significant advancements in coalescent theory, particularly through the work of Richard R. Hudson and Norman L. Kaplan, who developed frameworks linking genealogical processes to ancestry inference under recombination and selection.^[72] Their 1988 model extended the coalescent to neutral loci linked to selected sites, deriving statistical properties for gene trees that account for hitchhiking effects and recombination, enabling robust tests of selection from sequence data like the alcohol dehydrogenase region in Drosophila. These contributions facilitated backward-in-time simulations of population histories, transforming drift-based inference in multilocus genomics.^[73] In the 2020s, genetic drift research has integrated with big data through resources like GTDrift, which combines genomic, transcriptomic, and drift proxies to quantify its genomic impacts across species. Studies of CRISPR-edited populations reveal how drift in small, manipulated groups can amplify unintended variants and inbreeding risks, complicating conservation efforts in endangered species.^[74] Climate change exacerbates these dynamics by reducing effective population sizes (N_e), intensifying drift and eroding genetic diversity in vulnerable lineages, as seen in phylogeographic analyses of the African tree Baikiaea plurijuga.^[75] Post-2010 applications of coalescent methods to ancient DNA have further illuminated drift's role in historical admixture and extinctions, using full-genome data to infer N_e fluctuations and migration patterns with high precision.^[76]

References

[1]
Genetic Drift - National Human Genome Research Institute
Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution characterized by random fluctuations in the frequency of a particular version of a gene (allele) in a population.
[2]
Genetic drift - Understanding Evolution
Genetic drift is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution. In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendants.
[3]
Genetic drift (article) | Natural selection - Khan Academy
Genetic drift is a mechanism of evolution in which allele frequencies of a population change over generations due to chance (sampling error). Genetic drift ...
[4]
Genetic Drift - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Genetic drift is random change in allele frequencies due to sampling error in finite populations, causing loss of genetic variation.
[5]
Genetic drift - Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary
Jun 16, 2022 · Genetic drift is the drifting of the frequency of an allele relative to that of the other alleles in a population over time as a result of a chance or random ...Genetic Drift Definition · Types of Genetic Drift · Genetic Drift vs Gene Flow
[6]
Genetic Drift and Diversity – Molecular Ecology & Evolution
Genetic drift is an evolutionary process causing random changes in allele frequencies, reducing genetic variation and increasing homozygosity.
[7]
The contribution of gene flow, selection, and genetic drift to five ...
Jul 11, 2023 · We show how the genome-wide variance in allele frequency change between two time points can be decomposed into the contributions of gene flow, genetic drift, ...
[8]
Genetic Drift - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Sep 15, 2016 · Genetic drift is a biological form of random or indiscriminate sampling, and consequent sampling error.
[9]
HARDY-WEINBERG
The model has five basic assumptions: 1) the population is large (i.e., there is no genetic drift); 2) there is no gene flow between populations, from migration ...
[10]
30. Population Genetics: Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
The Hardy-Weinberg principle assumes conditions with no mutations, migration, emigration, or selective pressure for or against genotype, plus an infinite ...
[11]
[PDF] COMP 571 - Fall 2010 Luay Nakhleh, Rice University
heterozygosity (2pq) in six replicate finite populations experiencing genetic drift. ... Sampling error in allele frequency causes genetic drift, the.
[12]
Mechanisms of Evolution - Biological Principles
Populations are constantly under the influence of genetic drift. The random drifting of allele frequencies always happens, but the effect is subtle in larger ...
[13]
Bottlenecks and founder effects - Understanding Evolution
Genetic drift can cause big losses of genetic variation for small populations. Population bottlenecks occur when a population's size is reduced for at least ...
[14]
The neutral theory - Understanding Evolution
The neutral theory of molecular evolution suggests that most of the genetic variation in populations is the result of mutation and genetic drift and not ...
[15]
[PDF] 7.3 Genetic Drift and Molecular Evolution
Apr 24, 2024 · Kimura's neutral theory holds that effectively neutral mutations that rise to fixation by drift vastly outnumber bene- ficial mutations that ...
[16]
[PDF] "Genetic Drift in Human Populations". In - SDSU Biology
Apr 30, 2008 · Genetic drift consists of changes in allele frequencies due to sampling error. Even if all individuals in a population have the same ...
[17]
Lect 3 Pop. Gen. I Intro.
The Hardy-Weinberg principle (and its predicted equilibrium) is the cornerstone of population genetics. Developed independently by George Hardy and Wilhelm ...
[18]
Genetic Drift - MIT
We can imagine that there is some probability that a particular trait will be passed on from one generation to the next. This is like the flip of the coin. So ...
[19]
EVOLUTION IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS - Oxford Academic
Sewall Wright; EVOLUTION IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS, Genetics, Volume 16, Issue 2, 1 March 1931, Pages 97–159, https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/16.2.97.
[20]
[PDF] XXI.-On the Dominance Ratio. By R. A. Fisher,
Edinburgh, the author attempted an examination of the statistical effects in a mixed population of a large number of genetic factors, inheritance in.Missing: Ronald | Show results with:Ronald
[21]
[PDF] Evolution in Mendelian populations. - ESP.ORG
One of the major incentives in the pioneer studies of heredity and varia- tion which led to modern genetics was the hope of obtaining a deeper insight.
[22]
An introduction to the mathematical structure of the Wright–Fisher ...
In this paper, we develop the mathematical structure of the Wright–Fisher model for evolution of the relative frequencies of two alleles at a diploid locus.
[23]
[PDF] Moran model 1 Neutral case - Duke Math Department
The number of A's will decrease if an a is chosen to be the parent of the new individual, an event of probability (N − i)/N. Note that bi = di. Let τ = min{t : ...Missing: drift | Show results with:drift
[24]
[PDF] 3.1 random genetic drift and - binomial sampling 95
V(x) is the variance in allele frequency after one generation of binomial sam- pling of 2N alleles according to Equation 3.1; hence V(x) = x(1-x)/(2N). Many ...Missing: dynamics | Show results with:dynamics
[25]
Bridging Wright–Fisher and Moran models - ScienceDirect.com
Feb 21, 2025 · Specifically, in one generation, genetic drift is twice as large in the Moran model as in the Wright–Fisher model, while natural selection has ...
[26]
[PDF] Generalized population models and the nature of genetic drift
Jun 28, 2011 · Drift is strongest when an allele is at intermediate frequencies. Cannings (1974) introduced a large family of general population processes, ...
[27]
Modeling Multiallelic Selection Using a Moran Model - PMC - NIH
We present a Moran-model approach to modeling general multiallelic selection in a finite population and show how it may be used to develop theoretical models.Missing: paper | Show results with:paper
[28]
[PDF] The Coalescent - Santa Fe Institute Events Wiki
The Wright-Fisher model represents a case of perfectly non-overlapping generations and the Moran model represents an idealized case of overlapping generations.
[29]
The latent roots of certain Markov chains arising in genetics
Jul 1, 2016 · Haploid models of genetic drift in populations of constant size are considered. Generalizations of the models of Moran and Wright have been ...
[30]
The latent roots of certain Markov chains arising in genetics
Jul 1, 2016 · The method developed for the treatment of the classical drift models of Wright and Moran, and their generalizations, in Cannings (1974) are ...
[31]
DIFFUSION PROCESSES IN GENETICS - Project Euclid
in Wright's theory. Now this diffusion equation is of a peculiar type and it should be realized that the limiting process in question is but one in a family of.<|control11|><|separator|>
[32]
Diffusion approximations in population genetics and the rate of ...
Oct 7, 2022 · We argue that diffusion approximations of the Wright–Fisher model can be used more generally, for instance in cases where genetic drift is much weaker than ...
[33]
Statistical Inference in the Wright–Fisher Model Using Allele ...
We review and discuss strategies for approximating the DAF, and how these are used in methods that perform inference from allele frequency data.
[34]
Coalescent Theory: An Introduction | Systematic Biology
Mar 24, 2009 · The theory was initially developed by Kingman (1982) in 3 papers published in probability theory journals, which outline the foundation of ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[35]
https://www.columbia.edu/cu/simontavare/STpapers-pdf/T03.pdf
[36]
'Stepping stone' model of population - Semantic Scholar
A model of a genetic system which leads to closer linkage by natural selection and a probability method for treating inbreeding systems, especially with ...
[37]
The Island Model of Population Differentiation: A General Solution
The island model deals with a species which is subdivided into a number of discrete finite populations, races or subspecies, between which some migration occurs ...
[38]
The estimates of effective population size based on linkage ...
Jan 25, 2022 · The effective population size (Ne) is a key parameter to quantify the magnitude of genetic drift and inbreeding, with important implications ...
[39]
Effective Population Size Estimation in Large Marine Populations ...
Jul 28, 2025 · “SNeP: A Tool to Estimate Trends in Recent Effective Population Size Trajectories Using Genome-Wide SNP Data.” Frontiers in Genetics 6: 109.ABSTRACT · Introduction · A Simulation Framework for... · Conclusion
[40]
on the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population
Also the probability was estimated for a recessive mutant gene by HALDANE. (1927) and. WRIGHT ( 1942). The present author (KIMURA 1957) extended these results ...
[41]
Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level - Nature
Calculating the rate of evolution in terms of nucleotide substitutions seems to give a value so high that many of the mutations involved must be neutral ones.
[42]
Prediction and estimation of effective population size | Heredity
Jun 29, 2016 · Effective size of populations with unequal sex ratio and variation in mating success. J Anim Breed Genet 118: 297–310. Article Google ...
[43]
Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage ... - NIH
Effective population size has increased dramatically in the last ∼1000 generations (20,000 yr), from a fairly constant ancestral size of ∼2500 (CEU) and ∼7000 ( ...
[44]
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF GENERATIONS UNTIL FIXATION OF
A theory was presented which enables us to obtain the average number of generations until fixation, and separately, that until loss, based on the method of ...
[45]
Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, and Gene Flow Do Not Act in ...
Genetic drift thus removes genetic variation within demes but leads to differentiation among demes, completely through random changes in allele frequencies.
[46]
Effective Population Size - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
The effective population size Ne determines the effectiveness of natural selection; mutations with a selection coefficient s in the interval −1/(2Ne) < s < 1/( ...
[47]
Slightly Deleterious Mutant Substitutions in Evolution - Nature
Nov 9, 1973 · If this class of mutant substitution is important, we can predict that the evolution is rapid in small populations or at the time of speciation5 ...
[48]
The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene | Genetics Research
Apr 14, 2009 · When a selectively favourable gene substitution occurs in a population, changes in gene frequencies will occur at closely linked loci.
[49]
The Mutationathon highlights the importance of reaching ... - eLife
Jan 12, 2022 · Although most studies using human pedigrees have now reached similar rates of ~1.2 × 10–8 mutations per site per generation at an average age ...
[50]
Genetic Drift and Effective Population Size | Learn Science at Scitable
Perhaps the most important point is that the direction of the change is unpredictable; allele frequencies will randomly increase and decrease over time.
[51]
Boom-bust population dynamics drive rapid genetic change - PNAS
Apr 15, 2024 · Genetic drift associated with small and fragmented populations can lead to the loss of alleles, reduced heterozygosity, and increased population ...Sign Up For Pnas Alerts · Results · Methods
[52]
Genomic and fitness consequences of a near-extinction event in the ...
Sep 27, 2024 · Theory predicts that severe bottlenecks deplete genetic diversity, exacerbate inbreeding depression and decrease population viability.
[53]
The Cheetah Is Depauperate in Genetic Variation - Science
The extreme monomorphism may be a consequence of a demographic contraction of the cheetah (a population bottleneck) in association with a reduced rate of ...
[54]
Population bottlenecks and founder effects - PubMed Central - NIH
Jan 11, 2021 · Founder effects, therefore, are a form of genetic drift, whereby the frequency of a given genotype in a population changes due to stochastic ...
[55]
Allelic Richness following Population Founding Events
Dec 19, 2014 · This paper presents a stochastic model for the allelic richness of a newly founded population experiencing genetic drift and gene flow.
[56]
How large was the founding population of Darwin's finches? - PMC
Population bottlenecks are believed to lead to rapid changes in gene frequencies through genetic drift, to facilitate rapid emergence of novel phenotypes, and ...
[57]
Achromatopsia - GeneReviews® - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Jun 24, 2004 · Achromatopsia: the CNGB3 p.T383fsX mutation results from a founder effect and is responsible for the visual phenotype in the original report ...<|separator|>
[58]
The impact of translocations on neutral and functional genetic ...
Translocations are an increasingly common tool in conservation. The maintenance of genetic diversity through translocation is critical for both the short- ...Study Populations · Results · Discussion
[59]
Darwin and Genetics - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Darwin's own “pangenesis” model provided a mechanism for generating ample variability on which selection could act. It involved, however, the inheritance of ...
[60]
[PDF] systems of mating. 11. the effects of inbreeding on the ... - ESP.ORG
Formulae were derived in the first paper of this series (WRIGHT. 1921) by which ... as inbreeding. It should be added, however, that there is a somewhat.
[61]
[PDF] A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection—I
J. B. S. HALDANE Trinity College, Cambridge, U.K. Mathematical expressions are found for the effect of selection on simple Mendelian populations mating at ...Missing: drift | Show results with:drift
[62]
[PDF] The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in ...
SEWALL WRIGHT (1889– ). THE ROLES OF MUTATION, INBREEDING, CROSSBREEDING. AND ... WRIGHT, S., 1931 Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16:97-159.
[63]
[PDF] Wright, S. 1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. The ...
1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. The American Naturalist 56:330-338. Page 2 ...Missing: 1920s | Show results with:1920s
[64]
[PDF] The Shifting Balance Theory of Evolution
The shifting balance theory of evolution was first laid out by. Wright in two papers in 1931 and 1932. In these papers, Wright argued that the optimum ...Missing: original | Show results with:original<|separator|>
[65]
[PDF] The Heuristic Role of Sewall Wright's 1932 Adaptive Landscape ...
Evolution on the shifting balance process occurs in three phases: Phase I – Random genetic drift causes subpopulations semi-isolated within the global ...
[66]
The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
Motoo Kimura. Publisher: Cambridge University Press. Online publication date ... 3 - The neutral mutation-random drift hypothesis as an evolutionary paradigm.<|separator|>
[67]
https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1746/1/skipper_landscape.pdf
[68]
The Nearly Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution - jstor
THE NEARLY NEUTRAL. THEORY OF MOLECULAR. EVOLUTION. Tomoko Ohta. National Institute of Genetics, Mishima 411, Japan. KEY WORDS: molecular evolution and ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[69]
Molecular Evolution: Nearly Neutral Theory - Wiley Online Library
Feb 15, 2013 · The nearly neutral theory contends that the interplay of drift and weak selection is important and predicts that evolution is more rapid in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[70]
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2097289
[71]
Richard Hudson and Norman Kaplan on the Coalescent Process
The coalescent was first described by Kingman (1982), but was developed independently by Hudson (1983) and Tajima (1983); its influence on population ...Missing: theory 1980s
[72]
Plant conservation in the age of genome editing: opportunities and ...
Oct 24, 2024 · Small populations are most susceptible to random genetic drift, which raises their risk for extinction through increasing inbreeding ...
[73]
Climate change will disproportionally affect the most genetically ...
Apr 29, 2022 · Climate change will lead to severe reductions of distribution area of the genetically diverse Zambezian (− 41–− 54%) and Southern (− 63–− 82%) phylogroups.Results · Genetic Variation Within... · Genetic Variation And...
[74]
The power of coalescent methods for inferring recent and ancient ...
Our results highlight the power of the coalescent model in analysis of genomic data and the utility of the coding as well as noncoding parts of the genome in ...