The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Population structure of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) is strongly affected by the landscape
Abstract
Landscape features such as mountains, rivers, and ecological gradients may strongly affect patterns of dispersal and gene flow among populations and thereby shape population dynamics and evolutionary trajectories. The landscape may have a particularly strong effect on patterns of dispersal and gene flow in amphibians because amphibians are thought to have poor dispersal abilities. We examined genetic variation at six microsatellite loci in Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) from 28 breeding ponds in western Montana and Idaho, USA, in order to investigate the effects of landscape structure on patterns of gene flow. We were particularly interested in addressing three questions: (i) do ridges act as barriers to gene flow? (ii) is gene flow restricted between low and high elevation ponds? (iii) does a pond equal a ‘randomly mating population’ (a deme)? We found that mountain ridges and elevational differences were associated with increased genetic differentiation among sites, suggesting that gene flow is restricted by ridges and elevation in this species. We also found that populations of Columbia spotted frogs generally include more than a single pond except for very isolated ponds. There was also evidence for surprisingly high levels of gene flow among low elevation sites separated by large distances. Moreover, genetic variation within populations was strongly negatively correlated with elevation, suggesting effective population sizes are much smaller at high elevation than at low elevation. Our results show that landscape features have a profound effect on patterns of genetic variation in Columbia spotted frogs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Analyzing Tables of Statistical Tests
Rice, W. R. (1989) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2409177 · Cited by 14,571
Excoffier, L., Smouse, P. E., & Quattro, J. M. (1992) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/131.2.479 · Cited by 13,929
Cited by
Population genomics for wildlife conservation and management
Hohenlohe, P. A., Funk, W. C., & Rajora, O. P. (2021) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.15720 · Cited by 702
Self-citationGenetic 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
The Gradient Paradigm: A Conceptual and Analytical Framework for Landscape Ecology
Cushman, S. A., Gutzweiler, K., Evans, J. S., & McGarigal, K. (2010) · Spatial Complexity, Informatics, and Wildlife Conservation · doi:10.1007/978-4-431-87771-4_5 · Cited by 104
Do landscape processes predict phylogeographic patterns in the wood frog?
LEE‐YAW, J. A., DAVIDSON, A., MCRAE, B. H., & GREEN, D. M. (2009) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2009.04152.x · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- FUNK, W. C., BLOUIN, M. S., CORN, P. S., MAXELL, B. A., PILLIOD, D. S., AMISH, S., & ALLENDORF, F. W.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-01-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 483-496
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2120766276
- Cited by
- 346
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.