Talk:Minimum viable population

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page was a mess, so I made some grammatical corrections and elaborated a bit more. However, my biology knowledge is limited. It's not my field. Could someone possibly put in a real life example, and give a couple different PVA models? --aciel 02:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Distinct or Extinct?[edit]

Two groups of house cats in separate houses which are not allowed outdoors are also technically distinct populations.

Wait- they surely are technically distinct - but was this intended to say technically extinct? - Eric 18:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

A little more grammar needing tidying up.[edit]

"There are a marked trend for insularity, surviving genetic bottlenecks and r-strategy to allow far lower MVPs than average." Should be perhaps "There is a..." or something like "There are species with a...", perhaps. Not sure what is wanted to be said. For the consideration of any future editor who feels confident enough to make the necessary changes, on their own recognisance... 62.49.25.104 (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Human MVP?[edit]

Is there an MVP for humans? (Maybe the Last Man on Earth pickup line wouldn't be logical?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.118.233.147 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There surely is one. What it is is unknown (at least to me). Note that by the definition, it isn't actually the smallest survivable population, but the smallest with a 90-95% chance of survival -- so populations smaller than the MVP can actually survive. Thus, though populations as small as 20 humans have survived, though with deleterious genetic effects (See Pingelap - widespread color blindness), that doesn't necessarily mean the MVP is that small.
It should be fairly low, since we have survived a major bottleneck in the relatively recent (in evolutionary terms) past (see Toba catastrophe theory).

128.194.250.125 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be HIGHER now, BECAUSE we survived a major bottleneck, and thus have less total genetic variability. A smaller population with a higher amount of genetic variability would have a greater chance of long-term survival than an equally small population that had previously survived a bottleneck, and thus lacks the needed variability to cope with what it might face. 98.14.15.215 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minimum viable population. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)