There are lots of ways to measure genetic diversity, we found that the most common types in the literature were Allelic Richness (Ar), Expected (HE) and Observed (HO) Heterozygosity, and Inbreeding (FIS). Genetic diversity within a population is expected to go down as genetic drift increases. Typically, for genetic drift we measure genetic diversity. Because of this, we tend to measure other variables as a proxy for gene flow and genetic drift. It is nearly impossible to directly measure gene flow and genetic drift in natural populations. However, the sheer abundance of SNPs (solid circles) will reduce the influence of extreme data points, increasing the likelihood of higher confidence in resolving patterns in the data.

Highly variable microsatellites (open circles) may obscure patterns in the data due to homoplasy. (e) The choice of molecular marker can influence the predictive ability of the data. This results in increased gene flow between populations and reduced genetic drift within populations. This model states that urbanization brings organisms together, usually via human-mediated movement. The competitor is the “ Urban Facilitation” Model. This results in populations becoming isolated, reducing gene flow between populations and increasing genetic drift within populations. This model states that as urbanization grows, it fragments and eliminates natural habitat. The first one is the “ Urban Fragmentation” Model. You might not know this, but there are two competing models that seek to explain how urbanization influences gene flow and genetic drift. We looked at 167 primary literature papers to see what researchers have found.

In this paper, we discussed how urbanization influences gene flowand genetic drift. Recently, I published a review paper in Molecular Ecology with my co-authors, Ruth Rivkin, Marc TJ Johnson, Jason Munshi-South, and Brian Verrelli.

Gene drift vs gene flow