Using simulations to evaluate Mantel-based methods for assessing landscape resistance to gene flow

Mantel-based tests have been the primary analytical methods for understanding how landscape features influence observed spatial genetic structure. Simulation studies examining Mantel-based approaches have highlighted major challenges associated with the use of such tests and fueled debate on when the Mantel test is appropriate for landscape genetics studies. We aim to provide some clarity in this debate using spatially explicit, individual-based, genetic simulations to examine the effects of the following on the performance of Mantel-based methods: (1) landscape configuration, (2) spatial genetic nonequilibrium, (3) nonlinear relationships between genetic and cost distances, and (4) correlation among cost distances derived from competing resistance models. Under most conditions, Mantel-based methods performed poorly. Causal modeling identified the true model only 22% of the time. Using relative support and simple Mantel r values boosted performance to approximately 50%. Across all methods, performance increased when landscapes were more fragmented, spatial genetic equilibrium was reached, and the relationship between cost distance and genetic distance was linearized. Performance depended on cost distance correlations among resistance models rather than cell-wise resistance correlations. Given these results, we suggest that the use of Mantel tests with linearized relationships is appropriate for discriminating among resistance models that have cost distance correlations <0.85 with each other for causal modeling, or <0.95 for relative support or simple Mantel r. Because most alternative parameterizations of resistance for the same landscape variable will result in highly correlated cost distances, the use of Mantel test-based methods to fine-tune resistance values will often not be effective.This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by the author(s) and published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. The published article can be found at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292045-7758Keywords: landscape genetics, landscape resistance, landscape fragmentation, simulations, CDPOPKeywords: landscape genetics, landscape resistance, landscape fragmentation, simulations, CDPO

Genetic diversity Goals and Targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Genetic diversity among and within populations of all species is necessary for people and nature to survive and thrive in a changing world. Over the past three years, commitments for conserving genetic diversity have become more ambitious and specific under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). This Perspective article comments on how goals and targets of the GBF have evolved, the improvements that are still needed, lessons learned from this process, and connections between goals and targets and the actions and reporting that will be needed to maintain, protect, manage and monitor genetic diversity. It is possible and necessary that the GBF strives to maintain genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, to restore genetic connectivity, and to develop national genetic conservation strategies, and to report on these using proposed, feasible indicators

A global biodiversity observing system to unite monitoring and guide action

The rate and extent of global biodiversity change is surpassing our ability to measure, monitor and forecast trends. We propose an interconnected worldwide system of observation networks — a global biodiversity observing system (GBiOS) — to coordinate monitoring worldwide and inform action to reach international biodiversity targets.acceptedVersio

Data from: The relative influence of habitat amount and configuration on genetic structure across multiple spatial scales

Despite strong interest in understanding how habitat spatial structure shapes the genetics of populations, the relative importance of habitat amount and configuration for patterns of genetic differentiation remains largely unexplored in empirical systems. In this study, we evaluate the relative influence of, and interactions among, the amount of habitat and aspects of its spatial configuration on genetic differentiation in the pitcher plant midge, Metriocnemus knabi. Larvae of this species are found exclusively within the water-filled leaves of pitcher plants (Sarracenia purpurea) in a system that is naturally patchy at multiple spatial scales (i.e., leaf, plant, cluster, peatland). Using generalized linear mixed models and multimodel inference, we estimated effects of the amount of habitat, patch size, interpatch distance, and patch isolation, measured at different spatial scales, on genetic differentiation (FST) among larval samples from leaves within plants, plants within clusters, and clusters within peatlands. Among leaves and plants, genetic differentiation appears to be driven by female oviposition behaviors and is influenced by habitat isolation at a broad (peatland) scale. Among clusters, gene flow is spatially restricted and aspects of both the amount of habitat and configuration at the focal scale are important, as is their interaction. Our results suggest that both habitat amount and configuration can be important determinants of genetic structure and that their relative influence is scale dependent

Metriocnemus knabi microsatellite data

10 loci, GenalEx forma

Using simulations to evaluate Mantel‐based methods for assessing landscape resistance to gene flow

Mantel‐based tests have been the primary analytical methods for understanding how landscape features influence observed spatial genetic structure. Simulation studies examining Mantel‐based approaches have highlighted major challenges associated with the use of such tests and fueled debate on when the Mantel test is appropriate for landscape genetics studies. We aim to provide some clarity in this debate using spatially explicit, individual‐based, genetic simulations to examine the effects of the following on the performance of Mantel‐based methods: (1) landscape configuration, (2) spatial genetic nonequilibrium, (3) nonlinear relationships between genetic and cost distances, and (4) correlation among cost distances derived from competing resistance models. Under most conditions, Mantel‐based methods performed poorly. Causal modeling identified the true model only 22% of the time. Using relative support and simple Mantel r values boosted performance to approximately 50%. Across all methods, performance increased when landscapes were more fragmented, spatial genetic equilibrium was reached, and the relationship between cost distance and genetic distance was linearized. Performance depended on cost distance correlations among resistance models rather than cell‐wise resistance correlations. Given these results, we suggest that the use of Mantel tests with linearized relationships is appropriate for discriminating among resistance models that have cost distance correlations <0.85 with each other for causal modeling, or <0.95 for relative support or simple Mantel r. Because most alternative parameterizations of resistance for the same landscape variable will result in highly correlated cost distances, the use of Mantel test‐based methods to fine‐tune resistance values will often not be effective

ZellerUsingSimulationsEvaluateAppendixS14.pdf

Mantel-based tests have been the primary analytical methods for understanding how landscape features influence observed spatial genetic structure. Simulation studies examining Mantel-based approaches have highlighted major challenges associated with the use of such tests and fueled debate on when the Mantel test is appropriate for landscape genetics studies. We aim to provide some clarity in this debate using spatially explicit, individual-based, genetic simulations to examine the effects of the following on the performance of Mantel-based methods: (1) landscape configuration, (2) spatial genetic nonequilibrium, (3) nonlinear relationships between genetic and cost distances, and (4) correlation among cost distances derived from competing resistance models. Under most conditions, Mantel-based methods performed poorly. Causal modeling identified the true model only 22% of the time. Using relative support and simple Mantel r values boosted performance to approximately 50%. Across all methods, performance increased when landscapes were more fragmented, spatial genetic equilibrium was reached, and the relationship between cost distance and genetic distance was linearized. Performance depended on cost distance correlations among resistance models rather than cell-wise resistance correlations. Given these results, we suggest that the use of Mantel tests with linearized relationships is appropriate for discriminating among resistance models that have cost distance correlations <0.85 with each other for causal modeling, or <0.95 for relative support or simple Mantel r. Because most alternative parameterizations of resistance for the same landscape variable will result in highly correlated cost distances, the use of Mantel test-based methods to fine-tune resistance values will often not be effective.Keywords: CDPOP, landscape genetics, landscape resistance, simulations, landscape fragmentatio

ZellerUsingSimulationsEvaluateAppendicesS1-13.pdf

Mantel-based tests have been the primary analytical methods for understanding how landscape features influence observed spatial genetic structure. Simulation studies examining Mantel-based approaches have highlighted major challenges associated with the use of such tests and fueled debate on when the Mantel test is appropriate for landscape genetics studies. We aim to provide some clarity in this debate using spatially explicit, individual-based, genetic simulations to examine the effects of the following on the performance of Mantel-based methods: (1) landscape configuration, (2) spatial genetic nonequilibrium, (3) nonlinear relationships between genetic and cost distances, and (4) correlation among cost distances derived from competing resistance models. Under most conditions, Mantel-based methods performed poorly. Causal modeling identified the true model only 22% of the time. Using relative support and simple Mantel r values boosted performance to approximately 50%. Across all methods, performance increased when landscapes were more fragmented, spatial genetic equilibrium was reached, and the relationship between cost distance and genetic distance was linearized. Performance depended on cost distance correlations among resistance models rather than cell-wise resistance correlations. Given these results, we suggest that the use of Mantel tests with linearized relationships is appropriate for discriminating among resistance models that have cost distance correlations <0.85 with each other for causal modeling, or <0.95 for relative support or simple Mantel r. Because most alternative parameterizations of resistance for the same landscape variable will result in highly correlated cost distances, the use of Mantel test-based methods to fine-tune resistance values will often not be effective.Keywords: CDPOP, landscape resistance, simulations, landscape genetics, landscape fragmentationKeywords: CDPOP, landscape resistance, simulations, landscape genetics, landscape fragmentatio

ZellerUsingSimulationsEvaluate.pdf

Mantel-based tests have been the primary analytical methods for understanding how landscape features influence observed spatial genetic structure. Simulation studies examining Mantel-based approaches have highlighted major challenges associated with the use of such tests and fueled debate on when the Mantel test is appropriate for landscape genetics studies. We aim to provide some clarity in this debate using spatially explicit, individual-based, genetic simulations to examine the effects of the following on the performance of Mantel-based methods: (1) landscape configuration, (2) spatial genetic nonequilibrium, (3) nonlinear relationships between genetic and cost distances, and (4) correlation among cost distances derived from competing resistance models. Under most conditions, Mantel-based methods performed poorly. Causal modeling identified the true model only 22% of the time. Using relative support and simple Mantel r values boosted performance to approximately 50%. Across all methods, performance increased when landscapes were more fragmented, spatial genetic equilibrium was reached, and the relationship between cost distance and genetic distance was linearized. Performance depended on cost distance correlations among resistance models rather than cell-wise resistance correlations. Given these results, we suggest that the use of Mantel tests with linearized relationships is appropriate for discriminating among resistance models that have cost distance correlations <0.85 with each other for causal modeling, or <0.95 for relative support or simple Mantel r. Because most alternative parameterizations of resistance for the same landscape variable will result in highly correlated cost distances, the use of Mantel test-based methods to fine-tune resistance values will often not be effective.Keywords: landscape fragmentation, landscape resistance, simulations, CDPOP, landscape geneticsKeywords: landscape fragmentation, landscape resistance, simulations, CDPOP, landscape genetic

Achieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions

Governments are negotiating actions intended to halt biodiversity loss and put it on a path to recovery by 2050. Here, we show that bending the curve for biodiversity is possible, but only if actions are implemented urgently and in an integrated manner. Connecting these actions to biodiversity outcomes and tracking progress remain a challenge.https://www.cell.com/one-earth/home2023-06-17hj2023Geography, Geoinformatics and Meteorolog