50/500 or 100/1000 debate is not about the time frame - Reply to Rosenfeld

2014/06/25 by Richard Frankham, Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Frankham, Richard +3
Arts and Humanities · Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · #92D10 #FOS: Biological sciences #Philosophy and History of Science #Populations and Evolution (q-bio.PE) #msc:92D10 #q-bio.PE

paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1406.6424

5 pages, 0 figures

openalex publication_date 2014/06/25 · arxiv created 2014/07/01 · arxiv updated 2014/07/02 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

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.

Citations

• Genetics in conservation management: Revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses
• Genetics and extinction

Related

• Note on: Considering the Case for Biodiversity Cycles: Reexamining the Evidence for Periodicity in the Fossil Record, by Lieberman and Melott, arXiv preprint 0704.2896
• Ten years in the library: new data confirm paleontological patterns
• Commentary 76.5
• Not even wrong: Reply to Loreau and Hector
• Olson's Gap or Olson's Extinction? A Bayesian tip-dating approach to resolving stratigraphic uncertainty