Allan Wilson Centre, Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2012 Oct;27(10):578-84. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.001. Epub 2012 Aug 4.
The 50/500 rule has been used as a guiding principle in conservation for assessing minimum viable effective population size (N(e)). There is much confusion in the recent literature about how the 500 value should be applied to assess extinction risk and set priorities in conservation biology. Here, we argue that the confusion arises when the genetic basis for a short-term N(e) of 50 to avoid inbreeding depression is used to justify a long-term N(e) of 500 to maintain evolutionary potential. This confusion can result in misleading conclusions about how genetic arguments alone are sufficient to set minimum viable population (MVP) thresholds for assessing the extinction risk of threatened species, especially those that emphasize that MVPs should be in the thousands to maintain evolutionary potential.
50/500 规则一直被用作保护生物学中评估最小可行有效种群大小 (N(e)) 的指导原则。最近的文献中对于如何应用 500 这个数值来评估灭绝风险和确定保护生物学的优先级存在很多混淆。在这里，我们认为，当用于避免近交衰退的短期 N(e) 值为 50 的遗传基础被用来证明长期 N(e) 值为 500 以维持进化潜力时，就会产生混淆。这种混淆可能会导致关于仅凭遗传论点就足以确定评估受威胁物种灭绝风险的最小可行种群 (MVP) 阈值的误导性结论，尤其是那些强调 MVP 应该为数以千计以维持进化潜力的结论。
