Landscape Genetics: Wetlands

  • Stephen F. SpearEmail author
Reference work entry


Landscape genetics is defined as research that explicitly quantifies how landscape variables (such as configuration and matrix quality) affect patterns of genetic variation and gene flow. Landscape genetic questions are typically focused on recent gene flow and landscape changes, and therefore, landscape genetic studies are often used to address ecological and conservation questions (e.g., barriers and corridors, source-sink dynamics, influence of landscape change) that are difficult to answer with more traditional demographic methods. Landscape genetics uses genetic data as the dependent variable and typically attempts to correlate genetic relationships with several independent variables representing landscape or environmental data, usually from a geographical information systems (GIS) computer environment that allows the landscape data to be visualized and analyzed using spatial statistics.


Connectivity Genetic variation Gene flow Landscape genetics 


  1. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19:716–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balkenhol N, Gugerli F, Cushman SA, Waits LP, Coulon A, Arntzen JW, Holderegger R, Wagner HH. Identifying future research needs in landscape genetics: where to from here? Landscape Ecol. 2009a;24:455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balkenhol N, Waits LP, Dezzani RJ. Statistical approaches in landscape genetics: an evaluation of methods for linking landscape and genetic data. Ecography. 2009b;32:818–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model selection and multimodel inference. A practical information-theoretic approach. New York: Springer; 2002.Google Scholar
  5. Dominguez-Dominguez O, Boto L, Alda F, Perez-Ponce de Leon G, Doadrio I. Human impacts on drainages of the Mesa Central, Mexico, and its genetic effects on an endangered fish, Zoogoneticus quitzeoensis. Conserv Biol. 2007;21:168–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Emaresi G, Pellet J, Dubey S, Hirzel AH, Fumagalli L. Landscape genetics of the alpine newt (Mesotriton alpestris) inferred from a strip-based approach. Conserv Genet. 2011;12:41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giordano AR, Ridenhour BJ, Storfer A. The influence of altitude and topography on genetic structure in the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum). Mol Ecol. 2007;16:1625–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldberg CS, Waits LP. Comparative landscape genetics of two pond-breeding amphibian species in a highly modified agricultural landscape. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:3650–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Howeth JG, McGaugh SE, Hendrickson DA. Contrasting demographic and genetic estimates of dispersal in the endangered Coahuilan box turtle: a contemporary approach to conservation. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:4209–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohn MH, Murphy WJ, Ostrander EA, Wayne RK. Genomics and conservation genetics. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:629–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P. Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol. 2003;18:189–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Manel S, Joost S, Epperson BK, Holderegger R, Storfer A, Rosenberg MS, Scribner KT, Bonin A, Fortin M-J. Perspectives on the use of landscape genetics to detect genetic adaptive variation in the field. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:3760–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. McRae BH. Isolation by resistance. Evolution. 2006;60:1551–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. McRae BH, Shah VB. Circuitscape user’s guide. Online. The University of California-Santa Barbara; 2009.
  15. Michels E, Cottenie K, Neys L, De Gelas K, Coppin P, De Meester L. Geographical and genetic distances among zooplankton populations in a set of interconnected ponds: a plea for using GIS modeling of the effective geographical distance. Mol Ecol. 2001;10:1929–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mockford SW, Herman TB, Snyder M, Wright JM. Conservation genetics of Blanding’s turtle and its application in the identification of evolutionarily significant units. Conserv Genet. 2007;8:209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murphy MA, Evans JS, Storfer A. Quantifying Bufo boreas connectivity in Yellowstone National Park with landscape genetics. Ecology. 2010a;91:252–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy MA, Dezzani R, Pilliod DS, Storfer A. Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations. Mol Ecol. 2010b;19:3634–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schlötterer C. Evolutionary dynamics of microsatellite DNA. Chromosoma. 2000;109:365–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Spear SF, Peterson CR, Matocq MD, Storfer A. Landscape genetics of the blotched tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum). Mol Ecol. 2005;14:2553–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin M-J, McRae BH, Scribner K. Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol. 2010;19:3576–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Evans JS, Goldberg CS, Robinson S, Spear SF, Dezzani R, Delmelle E, Vierling L, Waits LP. Putting the “landscape” in landscape genetics. Heredity. 2007;98:128–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP. Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol. 2010;19:3496–514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Strien M, Keller D, Holderegger R. A new analytical approach to landscape genetic modeling: least-cost transect analysis and linear mixed models. Mol Ecol. 2012;21:4010–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilmer JW, Elkin C, Wilcox C, Murray L, Niejalke D, Possingham H. The influence of multiple dispersal mechanisms and landscape structure on population clustering and connectivity in fragmented artesian spring snail populations. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:3733–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The WildsCumberlandUSA

Personalised recommendations