The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The K = 2 conundrum
Abstract
Assessments of population genetic structure have become an increasing focus as they can provide valuable insight into patterns of migration and gene flow. structure, the most highly cited of several clustering‐based methods, was developed to provide robust estimates without the need for populations to be determined a priori. structure introduces the problem of selecting the optimal number of clusters, and as a result, the Δ K method was proposed to assist in the identification of the “true” number of clusters. In our review of 1,264 studies using structure to explore population subdivision, studies that used Δ K were more likely to identify K = 2 (54%, 443/822) than studies that did not use Δ K (21%, 82/386). A troubling finding was that very few studies performed the hierarchical analysis recommended by the authors of both Δ K and structure to fully explore population subdivision. Furthermore, extensions of earlier simulations indicate that, with a representative number of markers, Δ K frequently identifies K = 2 as the top level of hierarchical structure, even when more subpopulations are present. This review suggests that many studies may have been over‐ or underestimating population genetic structure; both scenarios have serious consequences, particularly with respect to conservation and management. We recommend publication standards for population structure results so that readers can assess the implications of the results given their own understanding of the species biology.
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
Cited by
A tutorial on how not to over-interpret STRUCTURE and ADMIXTURE bar plots
Lawson, D. J., van Dorp, L., & Falush, D. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05257-7 · Cited by 560
OptM: estimating the optimal number of migration edges on population trees using Treemix
Fitak, R. R. (2021) · Biology Methods and Protocols · doi:10.1093/biomethods/bpab017 · Cited by 396
The complex geography of domestication of the African rice Oryza glaberrima
Choi, J. Y., Zaidem, M., Gutaker, R., Dorph, K., Singh, R. K., & Purugganan, M. D. (2019) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1007414 · Cited by 66
Petzold, A., & Hassanin, A. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217956 · Cited by 60
Highly replicated evolution of parapatric ecotypes
James, M. E., Arenas-Castro, H., Groh, J. S., Allen, S. L., Engelstädter, J., & Ortiz-Barrientos, D. (2021) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msab207 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Janes, J. K., Miller, J. M., Dupuis, J. R., Malenfant, R. M., Gorrell, J. C., Cullingham, C. I., & Andrew, R. L.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-06-14
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 3594-3602
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2617349321
- Cited by
- 606
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 36.17
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The K = 2 conundrum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.14187
- The paper
- Janes, J. K., Miller, J. M., Dupuis, J. R., Malenfant, R. M., Gorrell, J. C., Cullingham, C. I., & Andrew, R. L. (2017). The K = 2 conundrum. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14187
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.