Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis

Measures of genetic structure among individuals or populations collected at different spatial locations across a landscape are commonly used as surrogate measures of functional (i.e. demographic or genetic) connectivity. In order to understand how landscape characteristics influence functional connectivity, resistance surfaces are typically created in a raster GIS environment. These resistance surfaces represent hypothesized relationships between landscape features and gene flow, and are based on underlying biological functions such as relative abundance or movement probabilities in different land cover types. The biggest challenge for calculating resistance surfaces is assignment of resistance values to different landscape features. Here, we first identify study objectives that are consistent with the use of resistance surfaces and critically review the various approaches that have been used to parameterize resistance surfaces and select optimal models in landscape genetics. We then discuss the biological assumptions and considerations that influence analyses using resistance surfaces, such as the relationship between gene flow and dispersal, how habitat suitability may influence animal movement, and how resistance surfaces can be translated into estimates of functional landscape connectivity. Finally, we outline novel approaches for creating optimal resistance surfaces using either simulation or computational methods, as well as alternatives to resistance surfaces (e.g. network and buffered paths). These approaches have the potential to improve landscape genetic analyses, but they also create new challenges. We conclude that no single way of using resistance surfaces is appropriate for every situation. We suggest that researchers carefully consider objectives, important biological assumptions and available parameterization and validation techniques when planning landscape genetic studies.

[1]  Paul Beier,et al.  Forks in the Road: Choices in Procedures for Designing Wildland Linkages , 2008, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[2]  Max Nielsen-Pincus,et al.  Predicting land use change: comparison of models based on landowner surveys and historical land cover trends , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[3]  M. Cain,et al.  Long-distance seed dispersal in plant populations. , 2000, American journal of botany.

[4]  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.

[5]  L. Fahrig,et al.  Connectivity is a vital element of landscape structure , 1993 .

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

[7]  G. Hess Linking Extinction to Connectivity and Habitat Destruction in Metapopulation Models , 1996, The American Naturalist.

[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]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[10]  L. De Meester,et al.  Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modelling of the effective geographical distance , 2001, Molecular ecology.

[11]  A. Storfer,et al.  Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum) , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[12]  L. Bernatchez,et al.  Integrative use of spatial, genetic, and demographic analyses for investigating genetic connectivity between migratory, montane, and sedentary caribou herds , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[13]  Brett J. Goodwin,et al.  Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? , 2003, Landscape Ecology.

[14]  J. Rappole,et al.  The use of movement data as an assay of habitat quality , 1995, Oecologia.

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

[16]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabies Petrogale penicillata , 2009 .

[17]  Montgomery Slatkin,et al.  ISOLATION BY DISTANCE IN EQUILIBRIUM AND NON‐EQUILIBRIUM POPULATIONS , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  Andrew Fall,et al.  The Effects of Spatial Legacies following Shifting Management Practices and Fire on Boreal Forest Age Structure , 2007, Ecosystems.

[19]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Scale for resource selection functions , 2006 .

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

[21]  Á. Felicísimo,et al.  Wind as a Long-Distance Dispersal Vehicle in the Southern Hemisphere , 2004, Science.

[22]  John M. Pearce,et al.  SEX‐BIASED GENE FLOW IN SPECTACLED EIDERS (ANATIDAE): INFERENCES FROM MOLECULAR MARKERS WITH CONTRASTING MODES OF INHERITANCE , 2001, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Use of resource selection functions to identify conservation corridors , 2009 .

[24]  Julian D Olden,et al.  Machine Learning Methods Without Tears: A Primer for Ecologists , 2008, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[25]  W F Punch,et al.  Comparisons of likelihood and machine learning methods of individual classification. , 2002, The Journal of heredity.

[26]  S. Andelman,et al.  Mathematical Methods for Identifying Representative Reserve Networks , 2000 .

[27]  J. Battin When Good Animals Love Bad Habitats: Ecological Traps and the Conservation of Animal Populations , 2004 .

[28]  A. Hirzel Linking landscape- and population ecology for large population management modelling: the case of Ibex (capra ibex) in Switzerland , 2001 .

[29]  E. Matthysen,et al.  Incorporating landscape elements into a connectivity measure: a case study for the Speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria L.) , 2003, Landscape Ecology.

[30]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Non‐optimal animal movement in human‐altered landscapes , 2007 .

[31]  D. E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search , 1989 .

[32]  Helene H. Wagner,et al.  Landscape Genetics , 2008 .

[33]  J. Tewksbury,et al.  LOW-QUALITY HABITAT CORRIDORS AS MOVEMENT CONDUITS FOR TWO BUTTERFLY SPECIES , 2005 .

[34]  Bradley C Fedy,et al.  Genetic and ecological data provide incongruent interpretations of population structure and dispersal in naturally subdivided populations of white‐tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura) , 2008, Molecular ecology.

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

[36]  Mark S. Boyce,et al.  Modelling distribution and abundance with presence‐only data , 2006 .

[37]  Monica G. Turner,et al.  Landscape connectivity and population distributions in heterogeneous environments , 1997 .

[38]  C. Pyke,et al.  Habitat loss confounds climate change impacts , 2004 .

[39]  R. Fisher,et al.  Understanding the genetic effects of recent habitat fragmentation in the context of evolutionary history: phylogeography and landscape genetics of a southern California endemic Jerusalem cricket (Orthoptera: Stenopelmatidae: Stenopelmatus) , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[40]  Andrew Fall,et al.  Testing the importance of spatial configuration of winter habitat for woodland caribou: An application of graph theory , 2006 .

[41]  M. Saastamoinen,et al.  Organisms on the move: ecology and evolution of dispersal , 2010, Biology Letters.

[42]  D. Reznick,et al.  The relative influence of natural selection and geography on gene flow in guppies , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[43]  B. Epperson Plant dispersal, neighbourhood size and isolation by distance , 2007, Molecular ecology.

[44]  P. Beier,et al.  Uncertainty analysis of least-cost modeling for designing wildlife linkages. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[45]  Steven D. Gaines,et al.  PROPAGULE DISPERSAL IN MARINE AND TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENTS: A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE , 2003 .

[46]  J. Evans,et al.  Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. , 2010, Ecology.

[47]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Relating tradable credits for biodiversity to sustainability criteria in a dynamic landscape , 2009, Landscape Ecology.

[48]  Kevin R. Crooks,et al.  Connectivity Conservation: Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature , 2006 .

[49]  J. Hutchings,et al.  Dispersal in a stream dwelling salmonid: Inferences from tagging and microsatellite studies , 2004, Conservation Genetics.

[50]  Ian J. Wang,et al.  Landscape genetics and least‐cost path analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[51]  D. J. Funk,et al.  REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION CAUSED BY NATURAL SELECTION AGAINST IMMIGRANTS FROM DIVERGENT HABITATS , 2005 .

[52]  Goldberg,et al.  Genetic algorithms , 1993, Robust Control Systems with Genetic Algorithms.

[53]  M. Fortin,et al.  Considering spatial and temporal scale in landscape‐genetic studies of gene flow , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[54]  Michel Baguette,et al.  Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental assessment of boundary permeability for the natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) , 2006, Oecologia.

[55]  K. Hobson,et al.  Limited differentiation in microsatellite DNA variation among northern populations of the yellow warbler: evidence for male‐biased gene flow? , 2000, Molecular ecology.

[56]  S. Edmands Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[57]  M. Main Reconciling competing ecological explanations for sexual segregation in ungulates. , 2008, Ecology.

[58]  T. Brown,et al.  The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[59]  J. Roland,et al.  Genetic differentiation and gene flow among populations of the alpine butterfly, Parnassius smintheus, vary with landscape connectivity , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[60]  A. Storfer,et al.  Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[61]  S. Tweddale,et al.  Habitat fragmentation and genetic diversity of an endangered, migratory songbird, the golden‐cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[62]  Paola Laiolo,et al.  Landscape bioacoustics allow detection of the effects of habitat patchiness on population structure. , 2006, Ecology.

[63]  Erik Matthysen,et al.  The application of 'least-cost' modelling as a functional landscape model , 2003 .

[64]  A. Storfer,et al.  Landscape genetic structure of coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) in protected vs. managed forests , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[65]  A. Davidson,et al.  Do landscape processes predict phylogeographic patterns in the wood frog? , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[66]  C. Moritz CONSERVATION UNITS AND TRANSLOCATIONS : STRATEGIES FOR CONSERVING EVOLUTIONARY PROCESSES , 2004 .

[67]  Frank W Davis,et al.  Gene movement and genetic association with regional climate gradients in California valley oak (Quercus lobata Née) in the face of climate change , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[68]  Bruce Rannala,et al.  Bayesian inference of recent migration rates using multilocus genotypes. , 2003, Genetics.

[69]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[70]  D. H. Boshier,et al.  Increased pollen flow counteracts fragmentation in a tropical dry forest: An example from Swietenia humilis Zuccarini , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[71]  Justin S. Brashares,et al.  Optimizing dispersal and corridor models using landscape genetics , 2007 .

[72]  J. Pemberton,et al.  Landscape features affect gene flow of Scottish Highland red deer (Cervus elaphus) , 2008, Molecular ecology.

[73]  Lenore Fahrig,et al.  Landscape complementation and metapopulation effects on leopard frog populations , 2000 .

[74]  J. Clobert,et al.  Perspectives on the Study of Dispersal Evolution , 2001 .

[75]  Nicolas Ray,et al.  Genetic isolation by distance and landscape connectivity in the American marten (Martes americana) , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[76]  M. Whitlock,et al.  Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST≠1/(4Nm+1) , 1999, Heredity.

[77]  A. Seitz,et al.  The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common frog Rana temporaria , 1990 .

[78]  A. Bohonak,et al.  Dispersal, Gene Flow, and Population Structure , 1999, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[79]  N. Schtickzelle,et al.  Quantifying functional connectivity: experimental evidence for patch-specific resistance in the Natterjack toad (Bufo calamita) , 2004, Landscape Ecology.

[80]  A. Clevenger,et al.  GIS‐Generated, Expert‐Based Models for Identifying Wildlife Habitat Linkages and Planning Mitigation Passages , 2002 .

[81]  Viral B. Shah,et al.  Using circuit theory to model connectivity in ecology, evolution, and conservation. , 2008, Ecology.

[82]  Arthur Georges,et al.  Temporal and spatial variation in landscape connectivity for a freshwater turtle in a temporally dynamic wetland system. , 2009, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[83]  B. Williams,et al.  Landscape scale genetic effects of habitat fragmentation on a high gene flow species: Speyeria idalia (Nymphalidae) , 2002, Molecular ecology.

[84]  Hans Van Dyck,et al.  Landscape connectivity and animal behavior: functional grain as a key determinant for dispersal , 2007, Landscape Ecology.

[85]  Paul Beier,et al.  Use of Land Facets to Plan for Climate Change: Conserving the Arenas, Not the Actors , 2010, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[86]  L. Waits,et al.  Landscape genetics: where are we now? , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[87]  H. Pulliam,et al.  Ecological Processes That Affect Populations in Complex Landscapes , 1992 .

[88]  D. Pilliod,et al.  Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin , 2002 .

[89]  R. Knight A model of episodic, abiotic dispersal for oaks (Quercus robur) , 1985 .

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

[91]  Yu-Huang Wang,et al.  Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

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

[93]  C. Patrick Doncaster,et al.  Evaluating least-cost model predictions with empirical dispersal data: A case-study using radiotracking data of hedgehogs (Erinaceus europaeus) , 2007 .

[94]  R. Didham,et al.  Confounding factors in the detection of species responses to habitat fragmentation , 2005, Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[95]  M. Baguette,et al.  Gene flow and functional connectivity in the natterjack toad , 2006, Molecular ecology.

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

[97]  Andrew Fall,et al.  The sensitivity of least-cost habitat graphs to relative cost surface values , 2010, Landscape Ecology.

[98]  C. Parmesan Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change , 2006 .

[99]  Jean Clobert,et al.  Informed dispersal, heterogeneity in animal dispersal syndromes and the dynamics of spatially structured populations. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[100]  S. Vignieri,et al.  Streams over mountains: influence of riparian connectivity on gene flow in the Pacific jumping mouse (Zapus trinotatus) , 2005, Molecular ecology.

[101]  Jens Dauber,et al.  Effect of historic landscape change on the genetic structure of the bush-cricket Metrioptera roeseli , 2006, Landscape Ecology.

[102]  L. Waits,et al.  Comparative landscape genetics of two pond‐breeding amphibian species in a highly modified agricultural landscape , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[103]  Taku Kadoya,et al.  Assessing functional connectivity using empirical data , 2008, Population Ecology.

[104]  T. O. Crist,et al.  Critical Thresholds in Species' Responses to Landscape Structure , 1995 .

[105]  M. Wade,et al.  EXTINCTION AND RECOLONIZATION: THEIR EFFECTS ON THE GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION OF LOCAL POPULATIONS , 1988, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[106]  G. Helfman,et al.  Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[107]  A. Lowe,et al.  A landscape genetics approach for quantifying the relative influence of historic and contemporary habitat heterogeneity on the genetic connectivity of a rainforest bird , 2009, Molecular ecology.

[108]  Luca Fumagalli,et al.  Landscape genetics of the Alpine newt (Mesotriton alpestris) inferred from a strip-based approach , 2011, Conservation Genetics.

[109]  D. Alvarado-Serrano,et al.  Exploring the population genetic consequences of the colonization process with spatio‐temporally explicit models: insights from coupled ecological, demographic and genetic models in montane grasshoppers , 2010, Molecular ecology.