ArticleHeredity2019
Landscape genetic analyses of Cervus elaphus and Sus scrofa: comparative study and analytical developments.
Article in Heredity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Multiscale landscape genetic analysis identifies major waterways as a barrier to dispersal of feral pigs in north Queensland, Australia.Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- How ancient forest fragmentation and riparian connectivity generate high levels of genetic diversity in a microendemic Malagasy tree.Molecular ecology · 2023Article
- Predicting the evolution of the Lassa virus endemic area and population at risk over the next decades.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Main roads and land cover shaped the genetic structure of a Mediterranean island wild boar population.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- High dispersal capacity of Culicoides obsoletus (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae), vector of bluetongue and Schmallenberg viruses, revealed by landscape genetic analyses.Parasites & vectors · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Red deer and wild boar are two major game species whose populations are managed and live in areas impacted by human activities. Measuring and understanding the impact of landscape features on individual movements and spatial patterns of genetic variability in these species is thus of importance for managers. A large number of individuals sampled across Wallonia (Belgium) for both species have been genotyped using microsatellite markers (respectively > 1700 and > 1200 genotyped individuals) and some individuals have also been followed using a capture-mark-recapture (CMR) protocol. The combined data set represents an unprecedented opportunity to study and compare the environmental factors impacting the interconnectivity of these large mammals. The present study describes and uses a landscape genetic workflow to compare spatial patterns of genetic variability and the impact of environmental factors on genetic differentiation. For the latter analyses, we investigate the correlation between genetic and environmental distances (pairwise approach) and also between local genetic dissimilarity and environmental conditions (point approach). Preliminary analyses of CMR data confirm that motorways act as significant barriers to dispersal. However, analyses performed with the pairwise approach do not highlight any evidence of an impact of motorways on genetic differentiation, which is presumably due to their recent establishment. Complementary analyses performed with the point approach reveal that low altitude tends to be associated with higher genetic dissimilarity. From a methodological point of view, the present workflow illustrates the complementary application of both pairwise and point approaches, as well as univariate and multivariate analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.