Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31550072›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology resources2020

Sampling strategy optimization to increase statistical power in landscape genomics: A simulation-based approach.

Oliver Selmoni, Elia Vajana, Annie Guillaume, Estelle Rochat, Stéphane Joost

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology resources, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Landscape Genomic Analyses ofEvolutionary applications · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Oliver SelmoniLaboratory of Geographic Information Systems (LASIG), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0904-5486
Elia VajanaLaboratory of Geographic Information Systems (LASIG), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1340-3389
Annie GuillaumeLaboratory of Geographic Information Systems (LASIG), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2188-2861
Estelle RochatLaboratory of Geographic Information Systems (LASIG), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7978-5239
Stéphane JoostLaboratory of Geographic Information Systems (LASIG), School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering (ENAC), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1184-7501

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme 677353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An increasing number of studies are using landscape genomics to investigate local adaptation in wild and domestic populations. Implementation of this approach requires the sampling phase to consider the complexity of environmental settings and the burden of logistical constraints. These important aspects are often underestimated in the literature dedicated to sampling strategies. In this study, we computed simulated genomic data sets to run against actual environmental data in order to trial landscape genomics experiments under distinct sampling strategies. These strategies differed by design approach (to enhance environmental and/or geographical representativeness at study sites), number of sampling locations and sample sizes. We then evaluated how these elements affected statistical performances (power and false discoveries) under two antithetical demographic scenarios. Our results highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate sample size, which should be modified based on the demographic characteristics of the studied population. For species with limited dispersal, sample sizes above 200 units are generally sufficient to detect most adaptive signals, while in random mating populations this threshold should be increased to 400 units. Furthermore, we describe a design approach that maximizes both environmental and geographical representativeness of sampling sites and show how it systematically outperforms random or regular sampling schemes. Finally, we show that although having more sampling locations (between 40 and 50 sites) increase statistical power and reduce false discovery rate, similar results can be achieved with a moderate number of sites (20 sites). Overall, this study provides valuable guidelines for optimizing sampling strategies for landscape genomics experiments.

Indexed as

AnimalsData Interpretation, StatisticalFishesGenomicsInsectaMammalsModels, GeneticPlantsSample Sizefalse discovery ratelandscape genomicssample sizesampling strategystatistical power

Identifiers

PMID31550072
PMCPMC6972490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.