The Sensitivity of Genetic Connectivity Measures to Unsampled and Under-Sampled Sites

Landscape genetic analyses assess the influence of landscape structure on genetic differentiation. It is rarely possible to collect genetic samples from all individuals on the landscape and thus it is important to assess the sensitivity of landscape genetic analyses to the effects of unsampled and under-sampled sites. Network-based measures of genetic distance, such as conditional genetic distance (cGD), might be particularly sensitive to sampling intensity because pairwise estimates are relative to the entire network. We addressed this question by subsampling microsatellite data from two empirical datasets. We found that pairwise estimates of cGD were sensitive to both unsampled and under-sampled sites, and FST, Dest, and deucl were more sensitive to under-sampled than unsampled sites. We found that the rank order of cGD was also sensitive to unsampled and under-sampled sites, but not enough to affect the outcome of Mantel tests for isolation by distance. We simulated isolation by resistance and found that although cGD estimates were sensitive to unsampled sites, by increasing the number of sites sampled the accuracy of conclusions drawn from landscape genetic analyses increased, a feature that is not possible with pairwise estimates of genetic differentiation such as FST, Dest, and deucl. We suggest that users of cGD assess the sensitivity of this measure by subsampling within their own network and use caution when making extrapolations beyond their sampled network.

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

[2]  P. Beerli,et al.  Effect of unsampled populations on the estimation of population sizes and migration rates between sampled populations , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[3]  A. Storfer,et al.  Genetic structure among coastal tailed frog populations at Mount St. Helens is moderated by post-disturbance management. , 2012, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[4]  M. Moran.  Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies , 2003 .

[5]  L. Branch,et al.  Ecological metrics predict connectivity better than geographic distance , 2010, Conservation Genetics.

[6]  Terrill L. Frantz,et al.  Robustness of centrality measures under uncertainty: Examining the role of network topology , 2009, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[7]  David O. Wallin,et al.  Spatial scaling and multi-model inference in landscape genetics: Martes americana in northern Idaho , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[8]  R. Frankham,et al.  Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  M. Slatkin.  Seeing ghosts: the effect of unsampled populations on migration rates estimated for sampled populations , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[10]  Jean Thioulouse,et al.  The ade4 package - I : One-table methods , 2004 .

[11]  Garry Robins,et al.  Missing data in networks: exponential random graph (p∗) models for networks with non-respondents , 2004, Soc. Networks.

[12]  P. Hedrick,et al.  Assessing population structure: FST and related measures , 2011, Molecular ecology resources.

[13]  P. Donnelly,et al.  Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. , 2000, Genetics.

[14]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[15]  Erin L. Landguth,et al.  Sample design effects in landscape genetics , 2012, Conservation Genetics.

[16]  B. Weir,et al.  ESTIMATING F‐STATISTICS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POPULATION STRUCTURE , 1984, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  Todd C. Esque,et al.  Making molehills out of mountains: landscape genetics of the Mojave desert tortoise , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[18]  J. Nason,et al.  Landscape modelling of gene flow: improved power using conditional genetic distance derived from the topology of population networks , 2010, Molecular ecology.

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

[20]  Marie-Josée Fortin,et al.  Effects of sample size, number of markers, and allelic richness on the detection of spatial genetic pattern , 2012 .

[21]  N. Keyghobadi,et al.  Fine-scale genetic structure of an endangered population of the Mormon metalmark butterfly (Apodemia mormo) revealed using AFLPs , 2011, Conservation Genetics.

[22]  P. Wilson,et al.  Density-dependent dispersal suggests a genetic measure of habitat suitability , 2007 .

[23]  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.

[24]  L. Jost.  GST and its relatives do not measure differentiation , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[25]  R. Dyer.  GeneticStudio: a suite of programs for spatial analysis of genetic‐marker data , 2009, Molecular ecology resources.

[26]  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.

[27]  Jeff Bowman,et al.  Applications of graph theory to landscape genetics , 2008, Evolutionary applications.

[28]  Thibaut Jombart,et al.  adegenet: a R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers , 2008, Bioinform..

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

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

[31]  Landscape resistance and American marten gene flow , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[32]  Pierre Taberlet,et al.  Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics , 2003 .

[33]  A. Storfer,et al.  The influence of altitude and topography on genetic structure in the long‐toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactulym) , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[34]  L. Waits,et al.  Putting the ‘landscape’ in landscape genetics , 2007, Heredity.

[35]  Erratum to: Implications of incomplete networks on estimation of landscape genetic connectivity , 2013, Conservation Genetics.

[36]  J. Nason,et al.  Population Graphs: the graph theoretic shape of genetic structure , 2004, Molecular ecology.

[37]  M. Whitlock.  and D do not replace FST , 2011, Molecular ecology.

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

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

[40]  Paul Galpern,et al.  Grains of connectivity: analysis at multiple spatial scales in landscape genetics , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[41]  M. Wheeler.  Studies in Genetics VII , 1971 .

[42]  J H Maindonald,et al.  Draft of Changes and Additions in a Projected 3rd Edition of Data Analysis and Graphics Using R , 2009 .

[43]  T. Burg,et al.  Sampling for Microsatellite-Based Population Genetic Studies: 25 to 30 Individuals per Population Is Enough to Accurately Estimate Allele Frequencies , 2012, PloS one.

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

[45]  P. Wilson,et al.  Rapid Homogenization of Multiple Sources: Genetic Structure of a Recolonizing Population of Fishers , 2007 .

[46]  Gueorgi Kossinets.  Effects of missing data in social networks , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[47]  Nicholas G. Crawford,et al.  smogd: software for the measurement of genetic diversity , 2010, Molecular ecology resources.

[48]  Pan-Jun Kim,et al.  Reliability of rank order in sampled networks , 2005, physics/0702148.

[49]  Matrix quality and habitat configuration interactively determine functional connectivity in a widespread bush cricket at a small spatial scale , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[50]  F. Rousset.  genepop’007: a complete re‐implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux , 2008, Molecular ecology resources.

[51]  De-Xing Zhang,et al.  Measuring population differentiation using GST or D? A simulation study with microsatellite DNA markers under a finite island model and nonequilibrium conditions , 2011, Molecular ecology.

[52]  M. Newman,et al.  Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks , 2008, Nature.

[53]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Missing and spurious interactions and the reconstruction of complex networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.