Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it