Effects of sample size, number of markers, and allelic richness on the detection of spatial genetic pattern

The influence of study design on the ability to detect the effects of landscape pattern on gene flow is one of the most pressing methodological gaps in landscape genetic research. To investigate the effect of study design on landscape genetics inference, we used a spatially‐explicit, individual‐based program to simulate gene flow in a spatially continuous population inhabiting a landscape with gradual spatial changes in resistance to movement. We simulated a wide range of combinations of number of loci, number of alleles per locus and number of individuals sampled from the population. We assessed how these three aspects of study design influenced the statistical power to successfully identify the generating process among competing hypotheses of isolation‐by‐distance, isolation‐by‐barrier, and isolation‐by‐landscape resistance using a causal modelling approach with partial Mantel tests. We modelled the statistical power to identify the generating process as a response surface for equilibrium and non‐equilibrium conditions after introduction of isolation‐by‐landscape resistance. All three variables (loci, alleles and sampled individuals) affect the power of causal modelling, but to different degrees. Stronger partial Mantel r correlations between landscape distances and genetic distances were found when more loci were used and when loci were more variable, which makes comparisons of effect size between studies difficult. Number of individuals did not affect the accuracy through mean equilibrium partial Mantel r, but larger samples decreased the uncertainty (increasing the precision) of equilibrium partial Mantel r estimates. We conclude that amplifying more (and more variable) loci is likely to increase the power of landscape genetic inferences more than increasing number of individuals.

[1]  S. Cushman,et al.  Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[2]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Gene Flow in Complex Landscapes: Testing Multiple Hypotheses with Causal Modeling , 2006, The American Naturalist.

[3]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[4]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges , 2010, Conservation Genetics.

[5]  Aurélie Coulon,et al.  Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[6]  S. Cushman,et al.  Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[7]  M. Fortin,et al.  Comparison of the Mantel test and alternative approaches for detecting complex multivariate relationships in the spatial analysis of genetic data , 2010, Molecular ecology resources.

[8]  A Coulon,et al.  Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual–based approach , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[9]  Samuel A. Cushman,et al.  Representing genetic variation as continuous surfaces: An approach for identifying spatial dependency in landscape genetic studies , 2008 .

[10]  N. Mantel The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.

[11]  Jay M. Ver Hoef,et al.  Space—time zero‐inflated count models of Harbor seals , 2007 .

[12]  S. Cushman,et al.  cdpop: A spatially explicit cost distance population genetics program , 2010, Molecular ecology resources.

[13]  Francis K C Hui,et al.  The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. , 2011, Ecology.

[14]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Utility of computer simulations in landscape genetics , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[15]  L. Cavalli-Sforza,et al.  High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites , 1994, Nature.

[16]  B. Mcrae,et al.  ISOLATION BY RESISTANCE , 2006, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  Hugh P Possingham,et al.  Zero tolerance ecology: improving ecological inference by modelling the source of zero observations. , 2005, Ecology letters.

[18]  J. Travis,et al.  The impact of habitat loss and fragmentation on genetic drift and fixation time , 2006 .

[19]  Neil J. Anderson,et al.  Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. , 2009, Ecology.

[20]  Kevin S. McKelvey,et al.  Why sampling scheme matters: the effect of sampling scheme on landscape genetic results , 2009, Conservation Genetics.

[21]  M. Fortin,et al.  Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[22]  N. Balkenhol,et al.  Simulation modelling in landscape genetics: on the need to go further , 2011, Molecular ecology.

[23]  Sarah C. Goslee,et al.  The ecodist Package for Dissimilarity-based Analysis of Ecological Data , 2007 .

[24]  G. Luikart,et al.  Quantifying the lag time to detect barriers in landscape genetics , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[25]  A Coulon,et al.  Genetic structure is influenced by landscape features: empirical evidence from a roe deer population , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[26]  R. Sokal,et al.  Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the mantel test of matrix correspondence , 1986 .