The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical approaches in landscape genetics: an evaluation of methods for linking landscape and genetic data
Abstract
The goal of landscape genetics is to detect and explain landscape effects on genetic diversity and structure. Despite the increasing popularity of landscape genetic approaches, the statistical methods for linking genetic and landscape data remain largely untested. This lack of method evaluation makes it difficult to compare studies utilizing different statistics, and compromises the future development and application of the field. To investigate the suitability and comparability of various statistical approaches used in landscape genetics, we simulated data sets corresponding to five landscape‐genetic scenarios. We then analyzed these data with eleven methods, and compared the methods based on their statistical power, type‐1 error rates, and their overall ability to lead researchers to accurate conclusions about landscape‐genetic relationships. Results suggest that some of the most commonly applied techniques (e.g. Mantel and partial Mantel tests) have high type‐1 error rates, and that multivariate, non‐linear methods are better suited for landscape genetic data analysis. Furthermore, different methods generally show only moderate levels of agreement. Thus, analyzing a data set with only one method could yield method‐dependent results, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions. Based on these findings, we give recommendations for choosing optimal combinations of statistical methods, and identify future research needs for landscape genetic data analyses.
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
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
McRae, B. H. (2006) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00500.x · Cited by 1,081
Cited by
Least-Cost modelling and landscape ecology: concepts, applications, and opportunities
Etherington, T. R. (2016) · Current Landscape Ecology Reports · doi:10.1007/s40823-016-0006-9 · Cited by 160
Lozier, J. D., Strange, J. P., & Koch, J. B. (2013) · Conservation Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10592-013-0498-3 · Cited by 61
Multi-species genetic connectivity in a terrestrial habitat network
Marrotte, R. R., Bowman, J., Brown, M. G. C., Cordes, C., Morris, K. Y., Prentice, M. B., & Wilson, P. J. (2017) · Movement Ecology · doi:10.1186/s40462-017-0112-2 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Balkenhol, N., Waits, L. P., & Dezzani, R. J.
- Venue
- Ecography
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-29
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 818-830
- ISSN
- 0906-7590 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0587
- OpenAlex
- W2052615350
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 11.58
- 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.