Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ ZENODOarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
ZENODO
Dataset . 2015
License: CC 0
Data sources: ZENODO
DRYAD
Dataset . 2015
License: CC 0
Data sources: Datacite
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Data from: Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes

Authors: Forester, Brenna R.; Jones, Matthew R.; Joost, Stéphane; Landguth, Erin L.; Lasky, Jesse R.;

Data from: Detecting spatial genetic signatures of local adaptation in heterogeneous landscapes

Abstract

The spatial structure of the environment (e.g., the configuration of habitat patches) may play an important role in determining the strength of local adaptation. However, previous studies of habitat heterogeneity and local adaptation have largely been limited to simple landscapes, which poorly represent the multi-scale habitat structure common in nature. Here, we use simulations to pursue two goals: (1) we explore how landscape heterogeneity, dispersal ability, and selection affect the strength of local adaptation, and (2) we evaluate the performance of several genotype-environment association (GEA) methods for detecting loci involved in local adaptation. We found that the strength of local adaptation increased in spatially aggregated selection regimes, but remained strong in patchy landscapes when selection was moderate to strong. Weak selection resulted in weak local adaptation that was relatively unaffected by landscape heterogeneity. In general, the power of detection methods closely reflected levels of local adaptation. False positive rates (FPRs), however, showed distinct differences across GEA methods based on levels of population structure. The univariate GEA approach had high FPRs (up to 55%) under limited dispersal scenarios, due to strong isolation by distance. By contrast, multivariate, ordination-based methods had uniformly low FPRs (0-2%), suggesting these approaches can effectively control for population structure. Specifically, constrained ordinations had the best balance of high detection and low FPRs, and will be a useful addition to the GEA toolkit. Our results provide both theoretical and practical insights into the conditions that shape local adaptation and how these conditions impact our ability to detect selection.

Simulation dataThe final generation (generation 1250) of each simulation run and replicate. Simulations are divided into no selection simulations ("Nsims"), gradient selection simulations ("Gsims"), and discrete selection simulations ("H1/H5/H9sims").Simulations.zipSelection surfaces and sampling fileOne of the gradient selection files ("gradient1024x1024_N0_S1.txt") and a full set of habitat configuration rasters (H1/H5/H9 with 10 replicates each). The 500 randomly sampled individuals are provided in "sample500.csv".Surfaces_Sample.zip

Related Organizations
Keywords

genome scans, Genome scans, CDPOP, ordination methods, complex landscapes, latent factor mixed model

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 29
    download downloads 7
  • 29
    views
    7
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
2
Average
Average
Average
29
7