A comparison of popular approaches to optimize landscape resistance surfaces
Tóm tắt
Landscape resistance surfaces are often used to address questions related to movement, dispersal, or population connectivity. However, modeling landscape resistance is complicated by the selection of the most appropriate analytical approach and the assignment of resistance values to landscape features. We compare three common approaches used in landscape genetics to assign resistance values to landscape features and assess the ability of each approach to correctly identify the data generating resistance surfaces from competing resistance surfaces, as well as the accuracy of each method in recreating the true resistance surface. Using simulated genetic data and landscape resistance surfaces, three optimization approaches were evaluated: constrained optimization using reciprocal causal modeling (RCM-CO), constrained optimization using linear mixed effects (MLPE-CO) models, and true optimization using ResistanceGA, which combines MLPE models with a genetic algorithm. All methods had low type I error (20% or less) when the simulated surface was continuous, but only MLPE-CO and ResistanceGA had low type I error (10% or less) when the simulated surface was categorical. Error was substantially lower with ResistanceGA than MLPE-CO or RCM-CO for multivariate surfaces. Correlation between true and optimized resistance surfaces was generally high with MLPE-CO and ResistanceGA, but low with RCM-CO. MLPE-based approaches (ResistanceGA and MLPE-CO) were superior to RCM-CO, highlighting their value for landscape genetic analyses. The overall performance, objectivity, and accessibility of ResistanceGA underscore its value as a tool for inferring resistance values from genetic data to better understand how landscapes affect dispersal, movement and population connectivity.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adamack AT, Gruber B (2014) PopGenReport: simplifying basic population genetic analyses in R. Methods Ecol Evol 5(4):384–387
Adriaensen F, Chardon JP, De Blust G, Swinnen E, Villalba S, Gulinck H, Matthysen E (2003) The application of ‘least-cost’ modelling as a functional landscape model. Landsc Urban Plan 64(4):233–247
Anantharaman R, Hall K, Shah V, Edelman A (2019) Circuitscape in Julia: High performance connectivity modelling to support conservation decisions. http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1906.03542
Beier P, Majka DR, Spencer WD (2008) Forks in the road: choices in procedures for designing wildland linkages. Conserv Biol 22(4):836–851
Beier P, Spencer W, Baldwin RF, McRae BH (2011) Toward best practices for developing regional connectivity maps. Conserv Biol 25(5):879–892
Beninde J, Feldmeier S, Werner M, Peroverde D, Schulte U, Hochkirch A, Veith M (2016) Cityscape genetics: structural versus functional connectivity of an urban lizard population. Mol Ecol 25(20):4984–5000
Bothwell HM, Cushman SA, Woolbright SA, Hersch-Green EI, Evans LM, Whitham TG, Allan GJ (2017) Conserving threatened riparian ecosystems in the American West: precipitation gradients and river networks drive genetic connectivity and diversity in a foundation riparian tree (Populus angustifolia). Mol Ecol 26(19):5114–5132
Bowcock AM, Ruiz-Linares A, Tomfohrde J, Minch E, Kidd JR, Cavalli-Sforza LL (1994) High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368(6470):455–457
Charney ND (2012) Evaluating expert opinion and spatial scale in an amphibian model. Ecol Model 242:37–45
Clarke RT, Rothery P, Raybould AF (2002) Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: estimating gene flow with distance. JABES 7(3):361–372
Clevenger AP, Wierzchowski J, Chruszcz B, Gunson K (2002) Gis-generated, expert-based models for identifying wildlife habitat linkages and planning mitigation passages. Conserv Biol 16(2):503–514
Cushman SA, Landguth EL (2010) Scale dependent inference in landscape genetics. Landscape Ecol 25:967–979
Cushman S, Wasserman T, Landguth E, Shirk A (2013) Re-evaluating causal modeling with Mantel tests in landscape genetics. Diversity 5(1):51
Dudaniec RY, Worthington Wilmer J, Hanson JO, Warren M, Bell S, Rhodes JR (2016) Dealing with uncertainty in landscape genetic resistance models: a case of three co-occurring marsupials. Mol Ecol 25(2):470–486
Ferreras P (2001) Landscape structure and asymmetrical inter-patch connectivity in a metapopulation of the endangered Iberian lynx. Biol Conserv 100(1):125–136
Graves TA, Beier P, Royle JA (2013) Current approaches using genetic distances produce poor estimates of landscape resistance to interindividual dispersal. Mol Ecol 22(15):3888–3903
Guillot G, Rousset F (2013) Dismantling the Mantel tests. Methods Ecol Evol 4(4):336–344
Gustafson EJ (2018) How has the state-of-the-art for quantification of landscape pattern advanced in the twenty-first century? Landscape Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-018-0709-x
Jaffé R, Veiga JC, Pope NS, Lanes ÉCM, Carvalho CS, Alves R, Andrade SCS, Arias MC, Bonatti V, Carvalho AT, de Castro MS, Contrera FAL, Francoy TM, Freitas BM, Giannini TC, Hrncir M, Martins CF, Oliveira G, Saraiva AM, Souza BA, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL (2019) Landscape genomics to the rescue of a tropical bee threatened by habitat loss and climate change. Evol Appl. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12794
Khimoun A, Peterman W, Eraud C, Faivre B, Navarro N, Garnier S (2017) Landscape genetic analyses reveal fine-scale effects of forest fragmentation in an insular tropical bird. Mol Ecol 26(19):4906–4919
Landguth EL, Fedy BC, Oyler-McCance SJ, Garey AL, Emel SL, Mumma M, Wagner HH, Fortin M-J, Cushman SA (2012) Effects of sample size, number of markers, and allelic richness on the detection of spatial genetic pattern. Mol Ecol Resour 12(2):276–284
Legendre P, Fortin M-J, Borcard D (2015) Should the Mantel test be used in spatial analysis? Methods Ecol Evol 6(11):1239–1247
Manel S, Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Taberlet P (2003) Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 18(4):189–197
McRae BH (2006) Isolation by resistance. Evolution 60(8):1551–1561
Nei M (1973) Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70(12):3321–3323
Ohio Supercomputer Center (1987) Ohio Supercomputer Center. Columbus, OH: Ohio Supercomputer Center. http://osc.edu/ark:/19495/f5s1ph73
Oyler-McCance SJ, Fedy BC, Landguth EL (2013) Sample design effects in landscape genetics. Conserv Genet 14(2):275–285
Peterman WE (2018) ResistanceGA: an R package for the optimization of resistance surfaces using genetic algorithms. Methods Ecol Evol 9(6):1638–1647
Peterman WE, Connette GM, Semlitsch RD, Eggert LS (2014) Ecological resistance surfaces predict fine-scale genetic differentiation in a terrestrial woodland salamander. Mol Ecol 23(10):2402–2413
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 16 Dec 2017
Raufaste N, Rousset F (2001) Are partial mantel tests adequate? Evolution 55(8):1703–1705
Rudnick D, Ryan SJ, Beier P, Cushman SA, Dieffenbach F, Epps C, Gerber LR, Hartter JN, Jenness JS, Kintsch J (2012) The role of landscape connectivity in planning and implementing conservatiand restoration priorities. Issues in Ecology. Report No. 16. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC
Schlather M, Malinowski A, Menck J, Oesting M, Strokorb K (2015) Analysis, simulation and prediction of multivariate random fields with package randomfields. J Stat Softw 63(8):1–25
Scrucca L (2013) GA: a package for genetic algorithms in R. J Stat Softw 53(4):1–37
Seoane J, Bustamante J, Díaz-Delgado R (2005) Effect of expert opinion on the predictive ability of environmental models of bird distribution. Conserv Biol 19(2):512–522
Shirk AJ, Landguth EL, Cushman SA (2017) A comparison of regression methods for model selection in individual-based landscape genetic analysis. Mol Ecol Resour 18(1):55–67
Shirk AJ, Wallin DO, Cushman SA, Rice CG, Warheit KI (2010) Inferring landscape effects on gene flow: a new model selection framework. Mol Ecol 19(17):3603–3619
Sivanandam S, Deepa S (2007) Introduction to genetic algorithms. Springer, Berlin
Spear SF, Balkenhol N, Fortin MJ, McRae BH, Scribner K (2010) Use of resistance surfaces for landscape genetic studies: considerations for parameterization and analysis. Mol Ecol 19(17):3576–3591
Storfer A, Murphy MA, Spear SF, Holderegger R, Waits LP (2010) Landscape genetics: where are we now? Mol Ecol 19(17):3496–3514
van Etten J (2017) R package gdistance: distances and routes on geographical grids. J Stat Softw 76(13):1–21
Wang IJ, Savage WK, Shaffer HB (2009) Landscape genetics and least-cost path analysis reveal unexpected dispersal routes in the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Mol Ecol 18:1365–1374
Winiarski KJ, Whiteley AR, Peterman WE, McGarigal K (Forthcoming) Multi-scale resistant kernel surfaces derived from inferred gene flow: An application with vernal breeding amphibians. Mol Ecol Resour
Zeller KA, Creech TG, Millette KL, Crowhurst RS, Long RA, Wagner HH, Balkenhol N, Landguth EL (2016) Using simulations to evaluate Mantel-based methods for assessing landscape resistance to gene flow. Ecol Evol 6(12):4115–4128
Zeller K, McGarigal K, Whiteley A (2012) Estimating landscape resistance to movement: a review. Landscape Ecol 27(6):777–797