Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 603

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Landscape genetics: where are we now?

Open access
STORFER, ANDREW, MURPHY, MELANIE A., SPEAR, STEPHEN F., HOLDEREGGER, ROLF, WAITS, LISETTE P.·2010·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Landscape genetics has seen rapid growth in number of publications since the term was coined in 2003. An extensive literature search from 1998 to 2008 using keywords associated with landscape genetics yielded 655 articles encompassing a vast array of study organisms, study designs and methodology. These publications were screened to identify 174 studies that explicitly incorporated at least one landscape variable with genetic data. We systematically reviewed this set of papers to assess taxonomic and temporal trends in: (i) geographic regions studied; (ii) types of questions addressed; (iii) molecular markers used; (iv) statistical analyses used; and (v) types and nature of spatial data used. Overall, studies have occurred in geographic regions proximal to developed countries and more commonly in terrestrial vs. aquatic habitats. Questions most often focused on effects of barriers and/or landscape variables on gene flow. The most commonly used molecular markers were microsatellites and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLPs), with AFLPs used more frequently in plants than animals. Analysis methods were dominated by Mantel and assignment tests. We also assessed differences among journals to evaluate the uniformity of reporting and publication standards. Few studies presented an explicit study design or explicit descriptions of spatial extent. While some landscape variables such as topographic relief affected most species studied, effects were not universal, and some species appeared unaffected by the landscape. Effects of habitat fragmentation were mixed, with some species altering movement paths and others unaffected. Taken together, although some generalities emerged regarding effects of specific landscape variables, results varied, thereby reinforcing the need for species‐specific work. We conclude by: highlighting gaps in knowledge and methodology, providing guidelines to authors and reviewers of landscape genetics studies, and suggesting promising future directions of inquiry.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04691.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 603

Metadata

Authors
STORFER, A., MURPHY, M. A., SPEAR, S. F., HOLDEREGGER, R., & WAITS, L. P.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-08-13
Volume
19
Issue
17
Pages
3496-3514
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W1908896570
Cited by
603
References
4
FWCI
27.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Landscape genetics: where are we now? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04691.x
The paper
STORFER, A., MURPHY, M. A., SPEAR, S. F., HOLDEREGGER, R., & WAITS, L. P. (2010). Landscape genetics: where are we now? Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04691.x

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.