Landscape genetics in a changing world: disentangling historical and contemporary influences and inferring change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscape genetics seeks to determine the effect of landscape features on gene flow and genetic structure. Often, such analyses are intended to inform conservation and management. However, depending on the many factors that influence the time to reach equilibrium, genetic structure may more strongly represent past rather than contemporary landscapes. This well-known lag between current demographic processes and population genetic structure often makes it challenging to interpret how contemporary landscapes and anthropogenic activity shape gene flow. Here, we review the theoretical framework for factors that influence time lags, summarize approaches to address this temporal disconnect in landscape genetic studies, and evaluate ways to make inferences about landscape change and its effects on species using genetic data alone or in combination with other data. Those approaches include comparing correlation of genetic structure with historical versus contemporary landscapes, using molecular markers with different rates of evolution, contrasting metrics of genetic structure and gene flow that reflect population genetic processes operating at different temporal scales, comparing historical and contemporary samples, combining genetic data with contemporary estimates of species distribution or movement, and controlling for phylogeographic history. We recommend using simulated data sets to explore time lags in genetic structure, and argue that time lags should be explicitly considered both when designing and interpreting landscape genetic studies. We conclude that the time lag problem can be exploited to strengthen inferences about recent landscape changes and to establish conservation baselines, particularly when genetic data are combined with other data.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".