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 accessAbstract
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.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
vegan: Community Ecology Package
Oksanen, J., Simpson, G. L., Blanchet, F. G., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., Minchin, P. R., O'Hara, R. B., Solymos, P., Stevens, M. H. H., Szoecs, E., et al. (2001) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.vegan · Cited by 22,615
An Ordination of the Upland Forest Communities of Southern Wisconsin
Bray, J. R., & Curtis, J. T. (1957) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.2307/1942268 · Cited by 11,716
Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies
Price, A. L., Patterson, N. J., Plenge, R. M., Weinblatt, M. E., Shadick, N. A., & Reich, D. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1847 · Cited by 10,248
Population Structure and Eigenanalysis
Patterson, N., Price, A. L., & Reich, D. (2006) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.0020190 · Cited by 5,280
Conceptual issues in local adaptation
Kawecki, T. J., & Ebert, D. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00684.x · Cited by 3,714
raster: Geographic Data Analysis and Modeling
Hijmans, R. J. (2010) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.raster · Cited by 2,907
The ecodist Package for Dissimilarity-based Analysis of Ecological Data
Goslee, S. C., & Urban, D. L. (2007) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v022.i07 · Cited by 2,429
FORWARD SELECTION OF EXPLANATORY VARIABLES
Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P., & Borcard, D. (2008) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/07-0986.1 · Cited by 2,116
Gene flow and the limits to natural selection
Lenormand, T. (2002) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(02)02497-7 · Cited by 1,871
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
“…approaches that can detect covarying signals across multiple loci (e.g., Turchin et al. 2012; Berg and Coop 2014; Fitzpatrick and Keller 2014; Forester et al. 2015; Laporte et al. 2016), as it is still not known how frequently signals of local adaptation can be identi fi ed and attributed to…”
A decade of seascape genetics: contributions to basic and applied marine connectivity
Selkoe, K., D’Aloia, C., Crandall, E., Iacchei, M., Liggins, L., Puritz, J., von der Heyden, S., & Toonen, R. (2016) · Marine Ecology Progress Series · doi:10.3354/meps11792 · Cited by 316
Genetic and Epigenetic Differentiation in Response to Genomic Selection for Avian Lay Date
Lindner, M., Verhagen, I., Mateman, A. C., van Oers, K., Laine, V. N., & Visser, M. E. (2024) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.13703 · Cited by 8
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.