Effects of sample size, number of markers, and allelic richness on the detection of spatial genetic pattern
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The influence of study design on the ability to detect the effects of landscape pattern on gene flow is one of the most pressing methodological gaps in landscape genetic research. To investigate the effect of study design on landscape genetics inference, we used a spatially‐explicit, individual‐based program to simulate gene flow in a spatially continuous population inhabiting a landscape with gradual spatial changes in resistance to movement. We simulated a wide range of combinations of number of loci, number of alleles per locus and number of individuals sampled from the population. We assessed how these three aspects of study design influenced the statistical power to successfully identify the generating process among competing hypotheses of isolation‐by‐distance, isolation‐by‐barrier, and isolation‐by‐landscape resistance using a causal modelling approach with partial Mantel tests. We modelled the statistical power to identify the generating process as a response surface for equilibrium and non‐equilibrium conditions after introduction of isolation‐by‐landscape resistance. All three variables (loci, alleles and sampled individuals) affect the power of causal modelling, but to different degrees. Stronger partial Mantel r correlations between landscape distances and genetic distances were found when more loci were used and when loci were more variable, which makes comparisons of effect size between studies difficult. Number of individuals did not affect the accuracy through mean equilibrium partial Mantel r, but larger samples decreased the uncertainty (increasing the precision) of equilibrium partial Mantel r estimates. We conclude that amplifying more (and more variable) loci is likely to increase the power of landscape genetic inferences more than increasing number of individuals.
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 | 0.206 | 0.427 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".