Possibly one could formulate the requirement that an average wolf population of the geographic scop

Environmental Protection Agency requirements that 95% of the original variation must be preserved is unrealistic, obiologiskt and indefinable! The reason is that the Scandinavian wolf population is not derived from a temporal and spatial homogeneous wolf population, while the hypothetical wolf population Environmental Protection Agency assumes comes from a very large area for a long time.
EPA seems conceivable to preserve 95% of the average heterozygosity is trapped over a geographically large area for a long time. Via puppy fled caught blah central European Russia recorded. The average heterozygosity over a large area with varying not distinct subpopulations will be greater than in isolated subpopulations and bigger than it has been in a avsnörd Scandinavian population, who roped into wolf belt when there were thousands of wolves and contact with Finland. Therefore, it seems a highly exaggerated claims that 95% of the variation in EPA's hypothetical population must be preserved.
Variations klaine in variation is typically much, much greater than the variation in a genomsnintt. The variation in heterozygosity between populations can vary by a factor of 30. 95% of the variation in something that varies violently easily klaine becomes very random!
The Finnish wolf population genetics has changed drastically over the last 150 years, as demonstrated by analysis with museum wolves. The populations are not constant over time. The history of genetic variation in wolf has been studied with museum wolves. The Scandinavian wolves before the extinction differed genetically from the current Finnish, so the relevance of preserving heterozygosity in the "source population" is very doubtful.
From an essay on Manitoba wolves: klaine "Aspi et al. (2006) found kinship positively correlated with distances up to 163 km in a Continuous Finnish wolf population Followed by signi fi cant isolation by distance on a limited spatial scale "; "Biological Interpretation of FST values is dif fi cult and Values within the range of 0:05 to 0:15 are Generally Considered as moderate (Balloux and Lugon-Moulin 2002)" "Thiessen found similar divergence values (FST = 0.0306-0.0552) between four populations klaine (n = 92-129) separated by larger geographic distances ([100 km). "
From Aspi 2009 (wolf). "The average expected heterozygosity in the Karelian population (0709 0126) was signi fi cantly higher (Wilcoxon test: Z = -2,599, p = 0.009) than in the Arkhangelsk wolf population (0636 0110)." If Karelia lost 5% of its variability would still be more varied than Arkhangelsk.
Sweden / Finland (FST = 0.177, p-value not given) Finnish klaine / Karelian (Russia) (FST = 0.151, klaine p <0.001) Finland / Arkhangelsk (Russia) (FST = 0.176, p <0.001) Karelian / Archangelsk (both Russia) (FST = 0.051, p = 0.048) Bialowieza Primeval Forest (Poland / Belarus), (FST = 0.024, p = 0.025)
Genomsnittsheterozygotin over a whole area is higher than in the parts. Conversely, one can say that "the obesäktade" immigrants to Scandinavia are "unrelated" more a obsläktade in calculations. klaine They are "negative" related!
These problems are discussed at all by the background report. It should have been a proper literature review and analysis behind. But it seems convincing that natural klaine subpopulations klaine are a little lower heterozygosity relative to the mega-population immigrants recruited from. By analogy, the hypothetical population which was in Scandinavia before operating the avsnördes have a little lower than heterozygosity mega population heterozygosity related.
EU predator guidelines and other conservation biology literature indicates that there is at least one migrant per generation for subpopulations in a metapopulation will not be too genetically differentiated. Guidelines klaine think enough at the present situation klaine that there is a mottagarpopulation and a donor population that should not be too far apart. As one migrant klaine per generation svararar against klaine an inbred F = 0.2, so the EU believes that populations can push away from each corresponding to Fst = 0.2 or heterozygosity is drifting away 20% from the value that would prevail if subpopulations all be the same equilibrium population. klaine It is thus clear that Sweden wanted to put far greater demands than the EU guidelines.
Possibly one could formulate the requirement that an average wolf population of the geographic scope of the Scandinavian've probably has FST = 0.05 against the large donor population. It is then a requirement to F = 0.10. It is managed by two migrants per generation and is the same requirements imposed by predators investigation, and there are some paved proposal to amend the requirement to preserve 90% of the variation. It would probably be less controversial and more understandable to do the modification.
In the context of genetic klaine variation can be said that very few wolves captures the bulk of the genetic variation (mean heteroz