Talk:Genetic erosion

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology: Genetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mpatter3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

envrionment.blogspot.com/2008/10/genetic-erosion.html This page, which turned up in one of my alerts, rang a bell. It is a direct steal from here. There's probably nothing that can be done, but I thought I would draw attention to it. I'd prefer not linking to it because there is no point giving the page any credibility, but I don't how to switch automatic linking off. Maybe someone else can do that? JeremyCherfas (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dont Panic

The reverse is true, the page you mention is a direct copy of wikipedia page "Genetic erosion", it should mention the source as wikepedia.

mrigthrishna (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It worked: the link is gone. Simon de Danser (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the following text as I have found this verbatum on several articles. Is it POV pushing? It reads like it. The fact the exact same text is in several articles explains why it does not dovetail very well into this article. i think these points are worth discussing but it neds to be rewritten to not be POV and relate directly to the subject of the article. It is way too general right now. David D. (Talk) 03:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic erosion in agricultural and livestock biodiversity

Genetic erosion in agricultural and livestock biodiversity is the loss of genetic diversity, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinants of genes (or gene complexes) such as those manifested in locally adapted landraces of domesticated animals or plants adapted to the natural environment in which they originated. The term genetic erosion is sometimes used in a narrow sense, such as for the loss of alleles or genes, as well as more broadly, referring to the loss of varieties or even species. The major driving forces behind genetic erosion in crops are: variety replacement, land clearing, overexploitation of species, population pressure, environmental degradation, overgrazing, policy and changing agricultural systems.

The main factor, however, is the replacement of local varieties of domestic plants and animals by high yielding or exotic varieties or species. A large number of varieties can also often be dramatically reduced when commercial varieties (including GMOs) are introduced into traditional farming systems. Many researchers believe that the main problem related to agro-ecosystem management is the general tendency towards genetic and ecological uniformity imposed by the development of modern agriculture.

Conventional hybridization for higher yield, genetic engineering and the resulting loss of biodiversity, a threat to food security

In agriculture and animal husbandry, green revolution popularized the use of conventional hybridization to increase yield many folds by creating "high-yielding varieties". Often the handful of breeds of plants and animals hybridized originated in developed countries and were further hybridized with local verities, in the rest of the developing world, to create high yield strains resistant to local climate and diseases. Local governments and industry since have been pushing hybridization with such zeal that several of the wild and indigenous breeds evolved locally over thousands of years having high resistance to local extremes in climate and immunity to diseases etc. have already become extinct or are in grave danger of becoming so in the near future. Due to complete disuse because of un-profitability and uncontrolled intentional, compounded with unintentional crosspollination and crossbreeding (genetic pollution) formerly huge gene pools of various wild and indigenous breeds have collapsed causing widespread genetic erosion and genetic pollution resulting in great loss in genetic diversity and biodiversity as a whole^[1].

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using the genetic engineering techniques generally known as recombinant DNA technology. Genetic Engineering today has become another serious and alarming cause of genetic pollution because artificially created and genetically engineered plants and animals in laboratories, which could never have evolved in nature even with conventional hybridization, can live and breed on their own and what is even more alarming interbreed with naturally evolved wild varieties. Genetically Modified (GM) crops today have become a common source for genetic pollution, not only of wild varieties but also of other domesticated varieties derived from relatively natural hybridization^{[2][3][4][5][6]}.

It is being said that genetic erosion coupled with genetic pollution is destroying that needed unique genetic base thereby creating an unforeseen hidden crisis which will result in a severe threat to our food security for the future when diverse genetic material will cease to exist to be able to further improve or hybridize weakening food crops and livestock against more resistant diseases and climatic changes^[7].

I have removed this text? What is the point of this text? Is it a quote? Shouldn't in be paraphrased or put into some context? David D. (Talk) 04:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Processes and consequences

“A population bottleneck creates a shrinking gene pool that leaves fewer and fewer mating partners. What are the genetic implications? The animals become part of a high stakes poker game -- with a crooked dealer. After beginning with a 52-card deck, the players wind up with, say, five cards that they are dealt over and over. As they begin to inbreed, congenital effects appear, both physical and reproductive. Often abnomral sperm increase; infertility rises; the birthrate falls. Most perilous in the long run, each animal's immune defense system is weakened. Thus, even if an endangered species in a bottleneck can withstand whatever human development may be eating away at its habitat, it still faces the threat of an epidemic that could well be fatal to the entire population.“^[8]

So what is the context for this? Why do we need this long quote, can't we paraphrase it? David D. (Talk) 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these references go back into the article they need to be formatted to be more readable and remove redundant info. Emails and addresses for authors are not required. David D. (Talk) 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment still stands. i see you put them all back in without making any changes. David D. (Talk) 22:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to revert without any comment? David D. (Talk) 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you kindly stop stalking me on wikipedia and read WP:STALKING and stop removing mass text from articles I have contributed on your whims and fancies, I request you to kindly do random editing and contributions on wikipedia articles that genuinly interest you, not stalk my articles like you have been doing since last many months.

-- Atulsnischal (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:STALKING? It says: "In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Am I causing a disruption? What examples of "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" can you point too? As for editing articles I'm genuinely interested in, I'm a biologist, and I'm genuinely interested in articles related to biology. Are you going to ignore the comments I made above? I did put them on a the talk page for a reason. David D. (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best thing is to just merge this with the Inbreeding article? Apart from the reference format it is a model article of this topic. Is there any good reason why this should not be a redirect to that page? David D. (Talk) 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you expect to not have problems with the POV section that you have cut and pasted into multiple articles? At present you have refused every opportunity to discuss this matter and just revert my edits accusing me of stalking. This is hopeful on your part, and you seem to think that if you say it enough it will become true. If you keep refusing to dicuss this issue i will remove that section from every article you have placed it. It reads like a political scree and is not neutral enough for wikipedia. You need to discuss how this section can be made more neutral, an opportunity that hs been present to you on at least two different talk pages. I am within my rights to remove this section if you choose to ignore all discussion. David D. (Talk) 04:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made it neutral enough, i spent days on it, your POV accusation is based on previous POV comments on Genetic pollution discussion page which came when I started the article and wrote two lines on it, i spent a week on it afterwards finding and using references and nuteral enough language, it states the truth. Definitely you have stalked me to my other articles over the months so there you go, I am busy now with other stuff in life. Kindly dont stalk me and bother me and do some constructive contributions instead to wikipedia. Please dont leave comment after comment for me on my talk page it has been bothering me, you are definitely causing stress, and my WP:STALKING accusation for you holds true. Atulsnischal (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your stalking accusations are unwarranted. I have been a long time contributor to GMO and biology topics here. Why shouldn't I take an interest in genetic erosion-type articles? Why do you think I even noticed your edits in the first place? Show me evidence of my edits not being constructive; almost all my edits have been to help your articles grow. You just can't see it in this case because you happen to disagree with my opinion (one that others share too).

When were those discussions and collaborative edits that led you to improve the POV of this text? To date, I have seen no evidence that you have been willing to receive independent input on this topic.

It’s a shame that you are unwilling to discuss this content dispute and instead try to change the subject and avoid any dialog. Is this your way of informing us you are unwilling to discuss any on the content you have inserted into multiple articles? Your input would be welcome but not necessary. David D. (Talk) 18:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following text copied from User talk:Atulsnischal by User:Atulsnischal. User David D. wrote:

"So by changing the title of this topic and the subsequent removal of the dialog is your way of informing us you are unwilling to discuss any on the content you have inserted into mulitple articles? Your input would be welcome but not necessary."

The following text also copied from User talk:Atulsnischal by User:Atulsnischal.

Listen I have Archived our previous conversation - it is in my talk page Archives [4], your edits are based on and motivated with WP:STALKING me on Wikipedia which you have been doing since the last year or so, outcome can not be healthy and I dont want to argue with you. Please do not go to my contributions page for following me from there to articles I have been working on, that is called stalking. Please dont get into ego clashes and personality clashes with people, just find articles randomly for contributing.

Hope it makes sense, also I did inform that I am busy with other stuff in life.

Best wishes, hope you will leave me alone. Atulsnischal (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, this above text was originally on Atulsnischal (talk · contribs) talk page. It was not titled WP:STALKING, although it is his/her belief I am stalking them since I keep trying to encourage him/her to make the spammed text relevant to the page at hand and less POV. Archiving text from a talk page as a way to avoid a conversation is a passive aggressive technique to try and force ones edits into an article. A long time ago I removed the problem text from the article to this talk page. Please address the issues and stop edit warring. David D. (Talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why is the parenthetical phrase present in "commercial varieties (including GMOs)" in the section "Genetic erosion in agricultural and livestock biodiversity"? That some varieties have been modified with modern techniques appears to be irrelevant. Allens (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no response, I have removed this material (and the link to "genetic pollution") as irrelevant. Allens (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If genetic erosion is a matter of decreased genetic diversity, as stated by the lead, then it is inappropriate to mention measures that decrease genetic diversity - by avoiding the entry of new genes - as actions in counter to it, as in "Zoos... safeguard against inbreeding and hybrids which are considered genetically compromised thus not fit for reintroduction in the wild and in the case of unnaturally found hybrids also to guard against genetic pollution in naturally evolved, region specific, pure wild stocks" in the section "Ex-Situ Conservation"; of the named actions, only safeguarding against inbreeding is a way of preventing genetic erosion. Allens (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no response, I have removed this material not related to genetic erosion. Allens (talk) 06:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic erosion. 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/20071012100006/http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/obrien-e.htm to http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/obrien-e.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stepped on the "genetic depletion" term in the CRISPR page. I didn't find a wikipedia page about it but the uses in papers (example) seem to be synonymous to "genetic erosion". Can somebody approve my recent change that adds "depletion" as a synonym? Then I can add links from the pages like CRISPR. Another question is whether a new redirection page "Genetic depletion" should be created. Cheater no1 (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]