Talk:Minimum viable population

Extinction High‑importance

	This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ecology Mid‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Inbreeding depression#Example taxa not subject to significant inbreeding depression|marked trend]] The anchor (#Example taxa not subject to significant inbreeding depression) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120023317/http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/small-populations/node4.html to http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb310/lecture-notes/small-populations/node4.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

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