Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 651

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations

Open access
Forester, Brenna R., Lasky, Jesse R., Wagner, Helene H., Urban, Dean L.·2018·Molecular Ecology

Abstract

Identifying adaptive loci can provide insight into the mechanisms underlying local adaptation. Genotype–environment association ( GEA ) methods, which identify these loci based on correlations between genetic and environmental data, are particularly promising. Univariate methods have dominated GEA , despite the high dimensional nature of genotype and environment. Multivariate methods, which analyse many loci simultaneously, may be better suited to these data as they consider how sets of markers covary in response to environment. These methods may also be more effective at detecting adaptive processes that result in weak, multilocus signatures. Here, we evaluate four multivariate methods and five univariate and differentiation‐based approaches, using published simulations of multilocus selection. We found that Random Forest performed poorly for GEA . Univariate GEA s performed better, but had low detection rates for loci under weak selection. Constrained ordinations, particularly redundancy analysis ( RDA ), showed a superior combination of low false‐positive and high true‐positive rates across all levels of selection. These results were robust across the demographic histories, sampling designs, sample sizes and weak population structure tested here. The value of combining detections from different methods was variable and depended on the study goals and knowledge of the drivers of selection. Re‐analysis of genomic data from grey wolves highlighted the unique, covarying sets of adaptive loci that could be identified using RDA . Although additional testing is needed, this study indicates that RDA is an effective means of detecting adaptation, including signatures of weak, multilocus selection, providing a powerful tool for investigating the genetic basis of local adaptation.

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.14584

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 651

Metadata

Authors
Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H., & Urban, D. L.
Venue
Molecular Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-04-23
Volume
27
Issue
9
Pages
2215-2233
ISSN
  • 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-294X
OpenAlex
W2797449804
Cited by
651
References
3
FWCI
26.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/mec.14584
The paper
Forester, B. R., Lasky, J. R., Wagner, H. H., & Urban, D. L. (2018). Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype–environment associations. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14584

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.