When can noninvasive samples provide sufficient information in conservation genetics studies?

Noninvasive sampling, of faeces and hair for example, has enabled many genetic studies of wildlife populations. However, two prevailing problems common to these studies are small sample sizes and high genotyping errors. The first problem stems from the difficulty in collecting noninvasive samples, particularly from populations of rare or elusive species, and the second is caused by the low quantity and quality of DNA extracted from a noninvasive sample. A common question is therefore whether noninvasive sampling provides sufficient information for the analyses commonly conducted in conservation genetics studies. Here, we conducted a simulation study to investigate the effect of small sample sizes and genotyping errors on the precision and accuracy of the most commonly estimated genetic parameters. Our results indicate that small sample sizes cause little bias in measures of expected heterozygosity, pairwise F_ST and population structure, but a large downward bias in estimates of allelic diversity. Allelic dropouts and false alleles had a much smaller effect than missing data, which effectively reduces sample size further. Overall, reasonable estimates of genetic variation and population subdivision are obtainable from noninvasive samples as long as error rates are kept below a frequency of 0.2. Similarly, unbiased estimates of population clustering can be made with genotyping error rates below 0.5 when the populations are highly differentiated. These results provide a useful guide for researchers faced with studying the conservation genetics of small, endangered populations from noninvasive samples.     

Does GST underestimate genetic differentiation from marker data?

The widely applied genetic differentiation statistics F_ST and G_ST have recently been criticized for underestimating differentiation when applied to highly polymorphic markers such as microsatellites. New statistics claimed to be unaffected by marker polymorphisms have been proposed and advocated to replace the traditional F_ST and G_ST. This study shows that G_ST gives accurate estimates and underestimates of differentiation when demographic factors are more and less important than mutations, respectively. In the former case, all markers, regardless of diversity (H_S), have the same G_ST value in expectation and thus give replicated estimates of differentiation. In the latter case, markers of higher H_S have lower G_ST values, resulting in a negative, roughly linear correlation between G_ST and H_S across loci. I propose that the correlation coefficient between G_ST and H_S across loci, r_GH, can be used to distinguish the two cases and to detect mutational effects on G_ST. A highly negative and significant r_GH, when coupled with highly variable G_ST values among loci, would reveal that marker G_ST values are affected substantially by mutations and marker diversity, underestimate population differentiation, and are not comparable among studies, species and markers. Simulated and empirical data sets are used to check the power and statistical behaviour, and to demonstrate the usefulness of the correlation analysis.     

Comparing phylogenetic signal in intraspecific and interspecific body size datasets

Phylogenetic comparative methods have become a standard statistical approach for analysing interspecific data, under the assumption that traits of species are more similar than expected by chance (i.e. phylogenetic signal is present). Here I test for phylogenetic signal in intraspecific body size datasets to evaluate whether intraspecific datasets may require phylogenetic analysis. I also compare amounts of phylogenetic signal in intraspecific and interspecific body size datasets. Some intraspecific body size datasets contain significant phylogenetic signal. Detection of significant phylogenetic signal was dependant upon the number of populations (n) and the amount of phylogenetic signal (K) for a given dataset. Amounts of phylogenetic signal do not differ between intraspecific and interspecific datasets. Further, relationships between significance of phylogenetic signal and sample size and amount of phylogenetic signal are similar for intraspecific and interspecific datasets. Thus, intraspecific body size datasets are similar to interspecific body size datasets with respect to phylogenetic signal. Whether these results are general for all characters requires further study.     

Walk,swim or fly? Locomotor mode predicts genetic differentiation in vertebrates

Limited dispersal is commonly used to explain differences in diversification rates. An obvious but unexplored factor affecting dispersal is the mode of locomotion used by animals. Whether individuals walk, swim or fly can dictate the type and severity of geographical barriers to dispersal, and determine the general range over which genetic differentiation might occur. We collated information on locomotion mode and genetic differentiation (F_ST) among vertebrate populations from over 400 published articles. Our results showed that vertebrate species that walk tend to have higher genetic differentiation among populations than species that swim or fly. Within species that swim, vertebrates in freshwater systems have higher genetic differentiation than those in marine systems, which is consistent with the higher number of species in freshwater environments. These results show that locomotion mode can impact gene flow among populations, supporting at a broad‐scale what has previously been proposed at smaller taxonomical scales.