Landscape Ecology

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 967–979 | Cite as

Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics

Research Article

Abstract

Ecological relationships between patterns and processes are highly scale dependent. This paper reports the first formal exploration of how changing scale of research away from the scale of the processes governing gene flow affects the results of landscape genetic analysis. We used an individual-based, spatially explicit simulation model to generate patterns of genetic similarity among organisms across a complex landscape that would result given a stipulated landscape resistance model. We then evaluated how changes to the grain, extent, and thematic resolution of that landscape model affect the nature and strength of observed landscape genetic pattern–process relationships. We evaluated three attributes of scale including thematic resolution, pixel size, and focal window size. We observed large effects of changing thematic resolution of analysis from the stipulated continuously scaled resistance process to a number of categorical reclassifications. Grain and window size have smaller but statistically significant effects on landscape genetic analyses. Importantly, power in landscape genetics increases as grain of analysis becomes finer. The analysis failed to identify the operative grain governing the process, with the general pattern of stronger apparent relationship with finer grain, even at grains finer than the governing process. The results suggest that correct specification of the thematic resolution of landscape resistance models dominates effects of grain and extent. This emphasizes the importance of evaluating a range of biologically realistic resistance hypotheses in studies to associate landscape patterns to gene flow processes.

Keywords

Landscape genetics Scale Grain Extent Thematic resolution Gradient Pattern Process Gene flow Simulation 

References

  1. Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Coulon A, Arntzen JW, Holderegger R, Wagner HH, Arens P, Campagne P, Dale VH, Nicieza AG, Smulders MJM, Tedesco E, Wang H, Wasserman TN (2009) Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landscape Ecol 24:455–463Google Scholar
  2. Bowcock AM, Ruiz-Linares A, Tomfohrde J, Minch E, Kidd JR, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1994) High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic micorsatellites. Nature 368:455–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Corry RC, Nassauer JI (2005) Limitations of using landscape pattern indices to evaluate the ecological consequences of alternative plans and designs. Landscape Urban Plan 72:265–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coulon A, Cosson JF, Angibault JM, Cargnelutti B, Galan M, Morellet N, Petit E, Aulagnier S, Hewison AJM (2004) Landscape connectivity influences gene flow in a roe deer population inhabiting a fragmented landscape: an individual-based approach. Mol Ecol 13:2841–2850. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2004.02253.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cushman SA (2006) Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biol Conserv 128:231–240. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.09.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cushman SA, Landguth EL (in press) Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics. Mol EcolGoogle Scholar
  7. Cushman SA, McKelvey KS, Hayden J, Schwartz MK (2006) Gene-flow in complex landscapes: testing multiple models with causal modeling. Am Nat 168:486–499CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cushman SA, McGarigal K, Neel M (2008a) Parsimony in landscape metrics: strength, universality, and consistency. Ecol Indic 8:691–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cushman SA, McKelvey K, Flather C, McGarigal K (2008b) Testing the use of forest communities to evaluate biological diversity. Frontiers Ecol Environ 6:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cushman SA, McGarial K, Gutzwiller K, Evans J (2009) The gradient paradigm: a conceptual and analytical framework for landscape ecology, chap 5. In: Cushman SA, Huettman F (eds) Spatial complexity, informatics and wildlife conservation. Springer, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupanloup I, Schneider S, Excoffier L (2001) A simulated annealing approach to define genetic structure of populations. Mol Ecol 58:2021–2036Google Scholar
  12. Epperson BK, McRae B, Scribner K, Cushman SA, Rosenberg MS, Fortin M-J, James PMA, Murphy M, Manel S, Legendre L, Dale MRT (in press) Utility of computer simulations in landscape genetics. Mol EcolGoogle Scholar
  13. ESRI (1999–2008) ArcGIS: Release 9.3. Environmental System Research Institute, Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Francois O, Ancelet S, Guillot G (2006) Bayesian clustering using hidden Markov random fields in spatial population genetics. Genetics 174:805–816CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hargis CD, Bissonette JA, David JL (1998) The behavior of landscape metrics commonly used in the study of habitat fragmentation. Landscape Ecol 13:167–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hess G, Bay JM (1997) Generating confidence intervals for composition-based landscape indexes. Landscape Ecol 12:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holderegger R, Wagner HH (2008) Landscape genetics. Bioscience 58:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2010) CDPOP: an individual-based, cost-distance spatial population genetics model. Mol Ecol Resour 10:156–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lausch A, Herzog F (2002) Applicability of landscape metrics for the monitoring of landscape change: issues of scale, resolution and interpretability. Ecol Indic 2:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin SA (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943–1967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li H, Wu J (2004) Use and misuse of landscape indices. Landscape Ecol 19:389–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18:189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. McGarigal K, Cushman SA (2005) The gradient concept of landscape structure. In: Wiens J, Moss M (eds) Issues and perspectives in landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evol Int J Org Evol 60:1551–1561Google Scholar
  26. McRae BH, Beier P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19885–19890. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706568104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Neel MC, Cushman SA, McGarigal K (2004) Behavior and stability of landscape metrics across controlled gradients of landscape structure. Landscape Ecol 19:435–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Peter D (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2009) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org
  30. Riitters KH, O’Neill RV, Hunsaker CT, Wickham JD, Yankee DH, Timmins SP, Jones KB, Jackson BL (1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol 10:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saura S, Martinez-Millan J (2001) Sensitivity of landscape pattern metrics to map spatial extent. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67:1027–1036Google Scholar
  32. Schwartz MK, Copeland JP, Anderson NJ, Squires JR, Inman RM, McKelvey KS, Pilgrim KL, Waits LP, Cushman SA (2009) Wolverine gene flow across a narrow climatic niche. Ecology 90:3222–3232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Segelbarcher G, Cushman SA, Epperson BK, Fortin M-J, Francois O, Hardy OJ, Holderegger R, Manel S (2010) Applications of landscape genetics in conservation biology: concepts and challenges. Conserv Genet. doi: 10.1007/s10592-009-0044-5
  34. Shao G, Liu D, Zhao G (2001) Relationships of image classification accuracy and variation of landscape statistics. Can J Remote Sens 27:33–43Google Scholar
  35. Shen W, Wu J, Ren H (2003) Effects of changing spatial extent on landscape pattern analysis. Acta Ecol Sin 23:2219–2231Google Scholar
  36. Smouse PE, Long JC, Sokal RR (1986) Multiple regression and correlation extensions of the Mantel test of matrix correspondence. Syst Zool 35:627–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS, Goldberg CS, Robinson S, Spear SF, Dezzani R, Delmelle E, Vierling L, Waits LP (2007) Putting the ‘‘landscape’’ in landscape genetics. Heredity 98:128–142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson CM, McGarigal K (2002) The influence of research scale on bald eagle habitat selection along the lower Hudson River, New York (USA). Landscape Ecol 17:569–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tischendor L (2001) Can landscape indices predict ecological processes consistently? Landscape Ecol 16:235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner MG, O’Neill RV, Gardner RH, Milne BT (1989) Effects of changing spatial scale on the analysis of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol 3:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wickham JD, Ritters KH (1995) Sensitivity of landscape metrics to pixel size. Int J Remote Sens 16:3585–3594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wickham JD, O’Neill RV, Riitters KH, Wade T, Jones KB (1997) Sensitivity of selected landscape pattern metrics to land-cover misclassification and differences in land-cover composition. Photogram Eng Remote Sens 63:397–402Google Scholar
  43. Wiens JA (1989) Spatial scaling in ecology. Funct Ecol 3:385–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu J (2004) Effects of changing scale on landscape pattern analysis: scaling relations. Landscape Ecol 19:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wu J, Hobbs R (2002) Key issues and research priorities in landscape ecology: an idiosyncratic synthesis. Landscape Ecol 17:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wu J, Loucks OL (1995) From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: a paradigm shift in ecology. Q Rev Biol 70:439–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wu J, Jelinski DE, Luck M, Tueller PT (2000) Multiscale analysis of landscape heterogeneity: scale variance and pattern metrics. Geogr Inf Syst 6:6–19Google Scholar
  48. Wu J, Shen W, Sun W, Tueller PT (2002) Empirical patterns of the effects of changing scale on landscape metrics. Landscape Ecol 17:761–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhao W, Fu B, Chen L (2003) The effects of grain change on landscape indices. Quat Sci 23:326–333Google Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research StationMissoulaUSA
  2. 2.Individualized Interdisciplinary Graduate Program, Mathematics BuildingUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations