The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Considering spatial and temporal scale in landscape‐genetic studies of gene flow
Abstract
Landscape features exist at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and these naturally affect spatial genetic structure and our ability to make inferences about gene flow. This article discusses how decisions about sampling of genotypes (including choices about analytical methods and genetic markers) should be driven by the scale of spatial genetic structure, the time frame that landscape features have existed in their current state, and all aspects of a species’ life history. Researchers should use caution when making inferences about gene flow, especially when the spatial extent of the study area is limited. The scale of sampling of the landscape introduces different features that may affect gene flow. Sampling grain should be smaller than the average home‐range size or dispersal distance of the study organism and, for raster data, existing research suggests that simplifying the thematic resolution into discrete classes may result in low power to detect effects on gene flow. Therefore, the methods used to characterize the landscape between sampling sites may be a primary determinant for the spatial scale at which analytical results are applicable, and the use of only one sampling scale for a particular statistical method may lead researchers to overlook important factors affecting gene flow. The particular analytical technique used to correlate landscape data and genetic data may also influence results; common landscape‐genetic methods may not be suitable for all study systems, particularly when the rate of landscape change is faster than can be resolved by common molecular markers.
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
McRae, B. H. (2006) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00500.x · Cited by 1,081
Structured Demes and the Evolution of Group-Advantageous Traits
Wilson, D. S. (1977) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/283146 · Cited by 363
Cited by
Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions
Hoban, S., Kelley, J. L., Lotterhos, K. E., Antolin, M. F., Bradburd, G., Lowry, D. B., Poss, M. L., Reed, L. K., Storfer, A., & Whitlock, M. C. (2016) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/688018 · Cited by 876
“Knowing the dispersal ecology of the study organism can guide the optimal spatial scale, resolution, and extent of sampling (Addicott et al. 1987; Wagner and Fortin 2005; Anderson et al. 2010).”
SPEAR, S. F., BALKENHOL, N., FORTIN, M., MCRAE, B. H., & SCRIBNER, K. (2010) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04657.x · Cited by 598
Self-citationCircuit‐theory applications to connectivity science and conservation
Dickson, B. G., Albano, C. M., Anantharaman, R., Beier, P., Fargione, J., Graves, T. A., Gray, M. E., Hall, K. R., Lawler, J. J., Leonard, P. B., et al. (2019) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.13230 · Cited by 461
Understanding the Importance of Dynamic Landscape Connectivity
Zeller, K., Lewison, R., Fletcher, R., Tulbure, M., & Jennings, M. (2020) · Land · doi:10.3390/land9090303 · Cited by 96
Vergara, M., Cushman, S. A., & Ruiz-González, A. (2017) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-017-0512-0 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- ANDERSON, C. D., EPPERSON, B. K., FORTIN, M., HOLDEREGGER, R., JAMES, P. M. A., ROSENBERG, M. S., SCRIBNER, K. T., & SPEAR, S.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-13
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 3565-3575
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W1792456730
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.94
- 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.