Union of phylogeography and landscape genetics

Abstract

Phylogeography and landscape genetics have arisen within the past 30 y. Phylogeography is said to be the bridge between population genetics and systematics, and landscape genetics the bridge between landscape ecology and population genetics. Both fields can be considered as simply the amalgamation of classic biogeography with genetics and genomics; however, they differ in the temporal, spatial, and organismal scales addressed and the methodology used. I begin by briefly summarizing the history and purview of each field and suggest that, even though landscape genetics is a younger field (coined in 2003) than phylogeography (coined in 1987), early studies by Dobzhansky on the "microgeographic races" of Linanthus parryae in the Mojave Desert of California and Drosophila pseudoobscura across the western United States presaged the fields by over 40 y. Recent advances in theory, models, and methods have allowed researchers to better synthesize ecological and evolutionary processes in their quest to answer some of the most basic questions in biology. I highlight a few of these novel studies and emphasize three major areas ripe for investigation using spatially explicit genomic-scale data: the biogeography of speciation, lineage divergence and species delimitation, and understanding adaptation through time and space. Examples of areas in need of study are highlighted, and I end by advocating a union of phylogeography and landscape genetics under the more general field: biogeography.biogeography | comparative phylogeography | speciation | evolution | Dobzhansky

A global analysis of bats using automated comparative phylogeography uncovers a surprising impact of Pleistocene glaciation

“…While single species studies, particularly those that utilize multilocus data (e.g., Hotaling et al., ), can compare a broad range of detailed models, and comparative studies into a single system enable a more nuanced investigation of how changes in the landscape have influenced evolutionary history (e.g., Mather, Hanson, Pope, & Riginos, ), neither has the potential to uncover generalized patterns on continental or global scales. Automated studies can incorporate organismal trait data in a manner that is not possible in more limited studies, which offers an important connection between evolutionary and ecological processes (Rissler, ). They complement traditional approaches to phylogeography and, by repurposing existing data, represent an efficient research program accessibly to most researchers.…”

Toward a paradigm shift in comparative phylogeography driven by trait-based hypotheses

“…Although we might expect that processes at fine scales should predict patterns at broader scales, the links between mechanism (e.g., traits that limit or promote movement) and pattern (phylogeographic signal) may not be evident when relying on distinct analytical frameworks. Without a shared framework, the relative influence of extrinsic vs. intrinsic factors in structuring genetic variation, as well as the influence of contemporary vs. past processes, remain unknown, and difficult to separate from the scale of a study (32).…”

Distributional shifts – not geographic isolation – as a probable driver of montane species divergence

“…In contrast, despite similar island areas between Puerto Rico versus the US and British Virgin Islands that formed a large complex during the LGM, species diversity differs, with higher diversity on Puerto Rico (Papadopoulou and Knowles 2016b). Similarly, we do not conduct a series of analyses to evaluate what contemporary environmental variables might best explain patterns of genetic variation across the landscape because the dynamic history of the Rocky Mountain sky islands highlights the importance of a historical perspective (Rissler 2016). In contrast, non-spatially explicit demographic models might have been used (Thomé and Carstens 2016).…”