2015
DOI: 10.1007/s00227-015-2638-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clones in space—how sampling can bias genetic diversity estimates in corals: editorial comment on the feature article by Gorospe et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(16 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…minutum ), genotypic parameters alone may not be informative on the existence or extent of clonality except for nearly strictly clonal organisms such as the human pathogen Trypanosoma cruzi . Such power would be gained as the spatial distance of clonal dispersal becomes lower than the sampling mesh size (for an example of the influence of sampling strategy in corals, see Gorospe et al, 2015; see Riginos, 2015 for a comment), and clonal replicates would become decreasingly randomly diluted at large population sizes and across vast spatial scales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…minutum ), genotypic parameters alone may not be informative on the existence or extent of clonality except for nearly strictly clonal organisms such as the human pathogen Trypanosoma cruzi . Such power would be gained as the spatial distance of clonal dispersal becomes lower than the sampling mesh size (for an example of the influence of sampling strategy in corals, see Gorospe et al, 2015; see Riginos, 2015 for a comment), and clonal replicates would become decreasingly randomly diluted at large population sizes and across vast spatial scales.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, distinct colonies sampled at least 5 m apart on the reef decreases the chances that collections will include clonal ramets (Baums et al 2019). For species known to engage more heavily in asexual proliferation, particularly Acroporids (Baums et al 2006, Gorospe et al 2015, Manzello et al 2019), even greater spacing of field‐sampled corals may be needed, or secondary genetic analysis performed, to verify the uniqueness of the sourced corals (Gorospe et al 2015, Riginos 2015, Manzello et al 2019).…”
Section: Proposed Common Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Photogrammetric approaches uniquely enable both fine-scale mapping and simultaneous characterization of the focal organism and surrounding reefscape, and will provide a step change in our ability to conduct landscape genomic assessments in marine environments. Such approaches have the potential to overcome pervasive sampling biases associated with underwater population genetic studies (Gorospe et al, 2015;Riginos, 2015) in that rigorous sampling designs can be established based on a priori characterized positioning, micro-environment, and phenotypes of organisms across the reefscape (Figure 1). As the spatial extent and grain of the reefscape characterization can vary per imaging platform (diver-based or autonomous underwater vehicle) and strategy (low or high altitude), reefscape genomic approaches allow for spatially explicit assessments from fine-scale (e.g., assessing the spread of somatic mutations or distribution of endosymbiotic associations within/between colonies), to medium-scale (e.g., patterns of genetic variation, kinship, and clonality within/across reef habitats), and broadscale (e.g., in conservation genomics assessments of rare and threatened species at the scale of hectares) (Figure 2).…”
Section: Opportunities Enabled By Reefscape Genomicsmentioning
confidence: 99%