ArticleHeredity2022
Assessing the influence of the amount of reachable habitat on genetic structure using landscape and genetic graphs.
Article in Heredity, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetic structure, i.e. intra-population genetic diversity and inter-population genetic differentiation, is influenced by the amount and spatial configuration of habitat. Measuring the amount of reachable habitat (ARH) makes it possible to describe habitat patterns by considering intra-patch and inter-patch connectivity, dispersal capacities and matrix resistance. Complementary ARH metrics computed under various resistance scenarios are expected to reflect both drift and gene flow influence on genetic structure. Using an empirical genetic dataset concerning the large marsh grasshopper (Stethophyma grossum), we tested whether ARH metrics are good predictors of genetic structure. We further investigated (i) how the components of the ARH influence genetic structure and (ii) which resistance scenario best explains these relationships. We computed local genetic diversity and genetic differentiation indices in genetic graphs, and ARH metrics in the unified and flexible framework offered by landscape graphs, and we tested the relationships between these variables. ARH metrics were relevant predictors of the two components of genetic structure, providing an advantage over commonly used habitat metrics. Although allelic richness was significantly explained by three complementary ARH metrics in the best PLS regression model, private allelic richness and MIW indices were essentially related with the ARH measured outside the focal patch. Considering several matrix resistance scenarios was also key for explaining the different genetic responses. We thus call for further use of ARH metrics in landscape genetics to explain the influence of habitat patterns on the different components of genetic structure.
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.