↓ Skip to main content

Landscape characteristics influencing the genetic structure of greater sage‐grouse within the stronghold of their range: a holistic modeling approach

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology and Evolution, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Landscape characteristics influencing the genetic structure of greater sage‐grouse within the stronghold of their range: a holistic modeling approach
Published in
Ecology and Evolution, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/ece3.1479
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey R Row, Sara J Oyler-McCance, Jennifer A Fike, Michael S O'Donnell, Kevin E Doherty, Cameron L Aldridge, Zachary H Bowen, Bradley C Fedy

Abstract

Given the significance of animal dispersal to population dynamics and geographic variability, understanding how dispersal is impacted by landscape patterns has major ecological and conservation importance. Speaking to the importance of dispersal, the use of linear mixed models to compare genetic differentiation with pairwise resistance derived from landscape resistance surfaces has presented new opportunities to disentangle the menagerie of factors behind effective dispersal across a given landscape. Here, we combine these approaches with novel resistance surface parameterization to determine how the distribution of high- and low-quality seasonal habitat and individual landscape components shape patterns of gene flow for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) across Wyoming. We found that pairwise resistance derived from the distribution of low-quality nesting and winter, but not summer, seasonal habitat had the strongest correlation with genetic differentiation. Although the patterns were not as strong as with habitat distribution, multivariate models with sagebrush cover and landscape ruggedness or forest cover and ruggedness similarly had a much stronger fit with genetic differentiation than an undifferentiated landscape. In most cases, landscape resistance surfaces transformed with 17.33-km-diameter moving windows were preferred, suggesting small-scale differences in habitat were unimportant at this large spatial extent. Despite the emergence of these overall patterns, there were differences in the selection of top models depending on the model selection criteria, suggesting research into the most appropriate criteria for landscape genetics is required. Overall, our results highlight the importance of differences in seasonal habitat preferences to patterns of gene flow and suggest the combination of habitat suitability modeling and linear mixed models with our resistance parameterization is a powerful approach to discerning the effects of landscape on gene flow.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 82 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Master 17 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Professor 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 41%
Environmental Science 21 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Computer Science 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 18 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 May 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Ecology and Evolution
#6,305
of 8,476 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,912
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology and Evolution
#47
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,476 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.