The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gene Flow in Complex Landscapes: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with Causal Modeling
Abstract
Predicting population-level effects of landscape change depends on identifying factors that influence population connectivity in complex landscapes. However, most putative movement corridors and barriers have not been based on empirical data. In this study, we identify factors that influence connectivity by comparing patterns of genetic similarity among 146 black bears (Ursus americanus), sampled across a 3,000-km(2) study area in northern Idaho, with 110 landscape-resistance hypotheses. Genetic similarities were based on the pairwise percentage dissimilarity among all individuals based on nine microsatellite loci (average expected heterozygosity=0.79). Landscape-resistance hypotheses describe a range of potential relationships between movement cost and land cover, slope, elevation, roads, Euclidean distance, and a putative movement barrier. These hypotheses were divided into seven organizational models in which the influences of barriers, distance, and landscape features were statistically separated using partial Mantel tests. Only one of the competing organizational models was fully supported: patterns of genetic structure are primarily related to landscape gradients of land cover and elevation. The alternative landscape models, isolation by barriers and isolation by distance, are not supported. In this black bear population, gene flow is facilitated by contiguous forest cover at middle elevations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Constructing LCPs as a baseline for comparison of genetic distances is more viable than simply using straight line distances.
“research has shown that constructing LCPs as a baseline for comparison of genetic distances is more viable than simply using straight line distances [8–10].”
From Testing least cost path (LCP) models for travel time and kilocalorie expenditure: Implications for landscape genomics (2020) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
Genetic structure is influenced by landscape features: empirical evidence from a roe deer population
COULON, A., GUILLOT, G., COSSON, J. ‐., ANGIBAULT, J. M. A., AULAGNIER, S., CARGNELUTTI, B., GALAN, M., & HEWISON, A. J. M. (2006) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.02861.x · Cited by 310
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 57
- 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[1223:SURTHF]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.1023/B:LAND.0000018357.45262.b9 · DOI
- Brody A. J., 1989, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 17, 5
- 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01566.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2001.0150041071.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01069.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02253.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1008109227107 · DOI
- deMaynadier P. G., 2000, Natural Areas Journal, 20, 56
- 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01650.x · DOI
- Arc GIS, Environmental Systems Research Incorporated
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02553.x · DOI
- 10.1016/0006-3207(94)00102-V · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1469-1795.1999.tb00068.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.03.023 · DOI
- 10.2307/3802333 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00325.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01814.x · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.1999.0686 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.96.10.5581 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.3420403 · DOI
- 10.2307/1939924 · DOI
- 10.4319/lo.1988.33.5.1055 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00349-X · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00008-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.tree.2004.12.004 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12813.x · DOI
- Mantel N., 1967, Cancer Research, 27, 209
- McIntyre S., 1992, Conservation Biology, 4, 197
- 10.2307/3802676 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10061509.x · DOI
- Morgan T. A., Idaho's forest products industry: a descriptive analysis. Resource Bulletin RMRS‐RB‐4. USDA Forest Service
- 10.2307/3802989 · DOI
- 10.1016/0040-5809(77)90014-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1600-0587.1998.tb00398.x · DOI
- Pritchard J. K., 2000, Genetics, 155, 945, 10.1093/genetics/155.2.945 · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2005.3246 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02907.x · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2000.00137.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0016672301004906 · DOI
- 10.1038/415520a · DOI
- 10.2193/0022-541X(2005)69[1434:GGCFAE]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- 10.2307/2413122 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0409574102 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-294X.1997.tb00141.x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tree.2004.07.003 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.02071.x · DOI
- 10.1098/rspb.2002.2184 · DOI
- Vitalis R., 2001, Genetics, 157, 911, 10.1093/genetics/157.2.911 · DOI
- 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00865.x · DOI
- 10.1093/jhered/89.5.438 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01255-X · DOI
- Wiens J. A., The landscape context of dispersal. Pages 96–109 in J
- 10.2307/3545811 · DOI
- Woods J. G., 1999, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 27, 616
- Wright S., 1943, Genetics, 28, 114, 10.1093/genetics/28.2.114 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gowen, K. M., & de Smet, T. S. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239387 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- Cushman, S. A., McKelvey, K. S., Hayden, J., & Schwartz, M. K.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 486-499
- ISSN
- 0003-0147
- 1537-5323
- Cited by
- 590
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review