Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 258

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes

Open access
Forester, Brenna R., Jones, Matthew R., Joost, Stéphane, Landguth, Erin L., Lasky, Jesse R.·2016·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

The spatial structure of the environment (e.g. the configuration of habitat patches) may play an important role in determining the strength of local adaptation. However, previous studies of habitat heterogeneity and local adaptation have largely been limited to simple landscapes, which poorly represent the multiscale habitat structure common in nature. Here, we use simulations to pursue two goals: (i) we explore how landscape heterogeneity, dispersal ability and selection affect the strength of local adaptation, and (ii) we evaluate the performance of several genotype–environment association (GEA) methods for detecting loci involved in local adaptation. We found that the strength of local adaptation increased in spatially aggregated selection regimes, but remained strong in patchy landscapes when selection was moderate to strong. Weak selection resulted in weak local adaptation that was relatively unaffected by landscape heterogeneity. In general, the power of detection methods closely reflected levels of local adaptation. False‐positive rates (FPR s), however, showed distinct differences across GEA methods based on levels of population structure. The univariate GEA approach had high FPR s (up to 55%) under limited dispersal scenarios, due to strong isolation by distance. By contrast, multivariate, ordination‐based methods had uniformly low FPR s (0–2%), suggesting these approaches can effectively control for population structure. Specifically, constrained ordinations had the best balance of high detection and low FPR s and will be a useful addition to the GEA toolkit. Our results provide both theoretical and practical insights into the conditions that shape local adaptation and how these conditions impact our ability to detect selection.

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/mec.13476

Cites

82 of 82 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 82 references

Cited by

See all 258

Metadata

Authors
Forester, B. R., Jones, M. R., Joost, S., Landguth, E. L., & Lasky, J. R.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-12-12
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
104-120
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W1643071920
Cited by
258
References
82
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.13476
The paper
Forester, B. R., Jones, M. R., Joost, S., Landguth, E. L., & Lasky, J. R. (2016). Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.13476

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.