The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of the Mantel test and alternative approaches for detecting complex multivariate relationships in the spatial analysis of genetic data
Abstract
The Mantel test is widely used to test the linear or monotonic independence of the elements in two distance matrices. It is one of the few appropriate tests when the hypothesis under study can only be formulated in terms of distances; this is often the case with genetic data. In particular, the Mantel test has been widely used to test for spatial relationship between genetic data and spatial layout of the sampling locations. We describe the domain of application of the Mantel test and derived forms. Formula development demonstrates that the sum‐of‐squares (SS) partitioned in Mantel tests and regression on distance matrices differs from the SS partitioned in linear correlation, regression and canonical analysis. Numerical simulations show that in tests of significance of the relationship between simple variables and multivariate data tables, the power of linear correlation, regression and canonical analysis is far greater than that of the Mantel test and derived forms, meaning that the former methods are much more likely than the latter to detect a relationship when one is present in the data. Examples of difference in power are given for the detection of spatial gradients. Furthermore, the Mantel test does not correctly estimate the proportion of the original data variation explained by spatial structures. The Mantel test should not be used as a general method for the investigation of linear relationships or spatial structures in univariate or multivariate data. Its use should be restricted to tests of hypotheses that can only be formulated in terms of distances.
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
Ecologically meaningful transformations for ordination of species data
Legendre, P., & Gallagher, E. D. (2001) · Oecologia · doi:10.1007/s004420100716 · Cited by 5,556
Self-citationMcRae, B. H. (2006) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00500.x · Cited by 1,081
Mutations arising in the wave front of an expanding population
Edmonds, C. A., Lillie, A. S., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0308064100 · Cited by 429
Cited by
Circuit‐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
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
MOORE, J. A., TALLMON, D. A., NIELSEN, J., & PYARE, S. (2011) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05313.x · Cited by 46
Mullins, J., McDevitt, A. D., Kowalczyk, R., Ruczyńska, I., Górny, M., & Wójcik, J. M. (2014) · Acta Theriologica · doi:10.1007/s13364-014-0180-2 · Cited by 34
Metadata
- Authors
- LEGENDRE, P., & FORTIN, M.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08-16
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 831-844
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W1858058589
- Cited by
- 702
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.47
- 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.
