Next Article in Journal
454 Pyrosequencing Analysis of Fungal Assemblages from Geographically Distant, Disparate Soils Reveals Spatial Patterning and a Core Mycobiome
Next Article in Special Issue
A Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) Marker Comparison of a Large In- and Ex-situ Potato Landrace Cultivar Collection from Peru Reaffirms the Complementary Nature of both Conservation Strategies
Previous Article in Journal
High Genetic Diversity in Geographically Remote Populations of Endemic and Widespread Coral Reef Angelfishes (genus: Centropyge)
Open AccessArticle

Re-Evaluating Causal Modeling with Mantel Tests in Landscape Genetics

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 800 E Beckwith, Missoula, MT 59801, USA
School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 1508, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA
Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98109, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2013, 5(1), 51-72;
Received: 30 November 2012 / Revised: 18 January 2013 / Accepted: 1 February 2013 / Published: 18 February 2013
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Diversity and Molecular Evolution)
The predominant analytical approach to associate landscape patterns with gene flow processes is based on the association of cost distances with genetic distances between individuals. Mantel and partial Mantel tests have been the dominant statistical tools used to correlate cost distances and genetic distances in landscape genetics. However, the inherent high correlation among alternative resistance models results in a high risk of spurious correlations using simple Mantel tests. Several refinements, including causal modeling, have been developed to reduce the risk of affirming spurious correlations and to assist model selection. However, the evaluation of these approaches has been incomplete in several respects. To demonstrate the general reliability of the causal modeling approach with Mantel tests, it must be shown to be able to correctly identify a wide range of landscape resistance models as the correct drivers relative to alternative hypotheses. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of the originally published causal modeling framework to support the correct model and reject alternative hypotheses of isolation by distance and isolation by barriers and to (2) evaluate the effectiveness of causal modeling involving direct competition of all hypotheses to support the correct model and reject all alternative landscape resistance models. We found that partial Mantel tests have very low Type II error rates, but elevated Type I error rates. This leads to frequent identification of support for spurious correlations between alternative resistance hypotheses and genetic distance, independent of the true resistance model. The frequency in which this occurs is directly related to the degree of correlation between true and alternative resistance models. We propose an improvement based on the relative support of the causal modeling diagnostic tests. View Full-Text
Keywords: landscape genetics; mantel test; causal modeling; simulation; CDPOP landscape genetics; mantel test; causal modeling; simulation; CDPOP
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Cushman, S.A.; Wasserman, T.N.; Landguth, E.L.; Shirk, A.J. Re-Evaluating Causal Modeling with Mantel Tests in Landscape Genetics. Diversity 2013, 5, 51-72.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Only visits after 24 November 2015 are recorded.
Back to TopTop