↓ Skip to main content

The genetic network of greater sage‐grouse: Range‐wide identification of keystone hubs of connectivity

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The genetic network of greater sage‐grouse: Range‐wide identification of keystone hubs of connectivity
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/ece3.4056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd B. Cross, Michael K. Schwartz, David E. Naugle, Brad C. Fedy, Jeffrey R. Row, Sara J. Oyler‐McCance

Abstract

Genetic networks can characterize complex genetic relationships among groups of individuals, which can be used to rank nodes most important to the overall connectivity of the system. Ranking allows scarce resources to be guided toward nodes integral to connectivity. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) is a species of conservation concern that breeds on spatially discrete leks that must remain connected by genetic exchange for population persistence. We genotyped 5,950 individuals from 1,200 greater sage-grouse leks distributed across the entire species' geographic range. We found a small-world network composed of 458 nodes connected by 14,481 edges. This network was composed of hubs-that is, nodes facilitating gene flow across the network-and spokes-that is, nodes where connectivity is served by hubs. It is within these hubs that the greatest genetic diversity was housed. Using indices of network centrality, we identified hub nodes of greatest conservation importance. We also identified keystone nodes with elevated centrality despite low local population size. Hub and keystone nodes were found across the entire species' contiguous range, although nodes with elevated importance to network-wide connectivity were found more central: especially in northeastern, central, and southwestern Wyoming and eastern Idaho. Nodes among which genes are most readily exchanged were mostly located in Montana and northern Wyoming, as well as Utah and eastern Nevada. The loss of hub or keystone nodes could lead to the disintegration of the network into smaller, isolated subnetworks. Protecting both hub nodes and keystone nodes will conserve genetic diversity and should maintain network connections to ensure a resilient and viable population over time. Our analysis shows that network models can be used to model gene flow, offering insights into its pattern and process, with application to prioritizing landscapes for conservation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 24%
Researcher 14 24%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 11 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 43%
Environmental Science 9 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,963,683
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#4,217
of 8,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,288
of 339,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#113
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,789 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.