The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines
Accurately detecting signatures of local adaptation using genetic‐environment associations (GEAs) requires controlling for neutral patterns of population structure to reduce the risk of false positives. However, a high degree of collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral population structur...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ecology and evolution 2016-12, Vol.6 (24), p.8649-8664 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8664 |
---|---|
container_issue | 24 |
container_start_page | 8649 |
container_title | Ecology and evolution |
container_volume | 6 |
creator | Nadeau, Simon Meirmans, Patrick G. Aitken, Sally N. Ritland, Kermit Isabel, Nathalie |
description | Accurately detecting signatures of local adaptation using genetic‐environment associations (GEAs) requires controlling for neutral patterns of population structure to reduce the risk of false positives. However, a high degree of collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral population structure can greatly reduce power, and the performance of GEA methods in such case is rarely evaluated in empirical studies. In this study, we attempted to disentangle the effects of local adaptation and isolation by environment (IBE) from those of isolation by distance (IBD) and isolation by colonization from glacial refugia (IBC) using range‐wide samples in two white pine species. For this, SNPs from 168 genes, including 52 candidate genes for growth and phenology, were genotyped in 133 and 61 populations of Pinus strobus and P. monticola, respectively. For P. strobus and using all 153 SNPs, climate (IBE) did not significantly explained among‐population variation when controlling for IBD and IBC in redundancy analyses (RDAs). However, 26 SNPs were significantly associated with climate in single‐locus GEA analyses (Bayenv2 and LFMM), suggesting that local adaptation took place in the presence of high gene flow. For P. monticola, we found no evidence of IBE using RDAs and weaker signatures of local adaptation using GEA and FST outlier tests, consistent with adaptation via phenotypic plasticity. In both species, the majority of the explained among‐population variation (69 to 96%) could not be partitioned between the effects of IBE, IBD, and IBC. GEA methods can account differently for this confounded variation, and this could explain the small overlap of SNPs detected between Bayenv2 and LFMM. Our study illustrates the inherent difficulty of taking into account neutral structure in natural populations and the importance of sampling designs that maximize climatic variation, while minimizing collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral structure.
Signatures of local adaptation were detected in range‐wide samples of Pinus strobus, but such signatures were weaker in Pinus monticola. In both species, the vast majority of the variation was confounded between the effects of isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and postglacial colonization history. Such confounding of patterns of local adaptation with neutral population structure is expected to be common in nature and complicates the detection of signatures of local adaptation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ece3.2550 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5192886</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1859485668</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-7e7be4e33a3084042fb55ad8ecd058773fdc6eb843e50bdb80b01a0a997664873</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks1u1DAUhSMEolXpghdAltjAYlrH_2GBhEZTQKrEpqwtx7mZuPLYwU46Gp6DB24yKVVBQsIbWz7fPdc_pyhel_iixJhcggV6QTjHz4pTghlfScnV8yfrk-I851s8DYEJw_JlcUIUppxweVr8uukA2c54D2ELKLYoQ2-SGVzYouy2wQxjgjwLPlrjkWlMP0xyDKhNcYeGLuZjncvRL_v1ATUuDyZYQCY0yEYfg_u5iN2kxHT4gI6NzVI77CPad24A1LsA-VXxojU-w_nDfFZ8v9rcrL-srr99_rr-dL2yTAq8kiBrYECpoVgxzEhbc24aBbbBXElJ28YKqBWjwHHd1ArXuDTYVJUUgilJz4qPi28_1jtoLIQhGa_75HYmHXQ0Tv-pBNfpbbzTvKyIUmIyePdgkOKPEfKgdy5b8N4EiGPWpeIVU1wI9T8oE6Wo6Iy-_Qu9jWMK00toMv2boCWR1US9XyibYs4J2sdzl1jPydBzMvScjIl98_Sij-TvHEzA5QLsnYfDv530Zr2hR8t7XNLEgg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2035631279</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Nadeau, Simon ; Meirmans, Patrick G. ; Aitken, Sally N. ; Ritland, Kermit ; Isabel, Nathalie</creator><creatorcontrib>Nadeau, Simon ; Meirmans, Patrick G. ; Aitken, Sally N. ; Ritland, Kermit ; Isabel, Nathalie</creatorcontrib><description>Accurately detecting signatures of local adaptation using genetic‐environment associations (GEAs) requires controlling for neutral patterns of population structure to reduce the risk of false positives. However, a high degree of collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral population structure can greatly reduce power, and the performance of GEA methods in such case is rarely evaluated in empirical studies. In this study, we attempted to disentangle the effects of local adaptation and isolation by environment (IBE) from those of isolation by distance (IBD) and isolation by colonization from glacial refugia (IBC) using range‐wide samples in two white pine species. For this, SNPs from 168 genes, including 52 candidate genes for growth and phenology, were genotyped in 133 and 61 populations of Pinus strobus and P. monticola, respectively. For P. strobus and using all 153 SNPs, climate (IBE) did not significantly explained among‐population variation when controlling for IBD and IBC in redundancy analyses (RDAs). However, 26 SNPs were significantly associated with climate in single‐locus GEA analyses (Bayenv2 and LFMM), suggesting that local adaptation took place in the presence of high gene flow. For P. monticola, we found no evidence of IBE using RDAs and weaker signatures of local adaptation using GEA and FST outlier tests, consistent with adaptation via phenotypic plasticity. In both species, the majority of the explained among‐population variation (69 to 96%) could not be partitioned between the effects of IBE, IBD, and IBC. GEA methods can account differently for this confounded variation, and this could explain the small overlap of SNPs detected between Bayenv2 and LFMM. Our study illustrates the inherent difficulty of taking into account neutral structure in natural populations and the importance of sampling designs that maximize climatic variation, while minimizing collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral structure.
Signatures of local adaptation were detected in range‐wide samples of Pinus strobus, but such signatures were weaker in Pinus monticola. In both species, the vast majority of the variation was confounded between the effects of isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and postglacial colonization history. Such confounding of patterns of local adaptation with neutral population structure is expected to be common in nature and complicates the detection of signatures of local adaptation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-7758</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ece3.2550</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28035257</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adaptation ; Collinearity ; Colonization ; Empirical analysis ; Gene flow ; Genes ; genetic‐environment associations ; isolation by colonization ; isolation by environment ; landscape genetics ; local adaptation ; Natural populations ; Original Research ; Phenotypic plasticity ; Pine trees ; Pinus ; Pinus monticola ; Pinus strobus ; Population ; Population structure ; Populations ; Redundancy ; Refugia ; Risk reduction ; Signatures ; Single-nucleotide polymorphism</subject><ispartof>Ecology and evolution, 2016-12, Vol.6 (24), p.8649-8664</ispartof><rights>2016 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-7e7be4e33a3084042fb55ad8ecd058773fdc6eb843e50bdb80b01a0a997664873</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-7e7be4e33a3084042fb55ad8ecd058773fdc6eb843e50bdb80b01a0a997664873</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3519-4998 ; 0000-0002-6395-8107</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5192886/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5192886/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,1418,11564,27926,27927,45576,45577,46054,46478,53793,53795</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28035257$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nadeau, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meirmans, Patrick G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aitken, Sally N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritland, Kermit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isabel, Nathalie</creatorcontrib><title>The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines</title><title>Ecology and evolution</title><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><description>Accurately detecting signatures of local adaptation using genetic‐environment associations (GEAs) requires controlling for neutral patterns of population structure to reduce the risk of false positives. However, a high degree of collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral population structure can greatly reduce power, and the performance of GEA methods in such case is rarely evaluated in empirical studies. In this study, we attempted to disentangle the effects of local adaptation and isolation by environment (IBE) from those of isolation by distance (IBD) and isolation by colonization from glacial refugia (IBC) using range‐wide samples in two white pine species. For this, SNPs from 168 genes, including 52 candidate genes for growth and phenology, were genotyped in 133 and 61 populations of Pinus strobus and P. monticola, respectively. For P. strobus and using all 153 SNPs, climate (IBE) did not significantly explained among‐population variation when controlling for IBD and IBC in redundancy analyses (RDAs). However, 26 SNPs were significantly associated with climate in single‐locus GEA analyses (Bayenv2 and LFMM), suggesting that local adaptation took place in the presence of high gene flow. For P. monticola, we found no evidence of IBE using RDAs and weaker signatures of local adaptation using GEA and FST outlier tests, consistent with adaptation via phenotypic plasticity. In both species, the majority of the explained among‐population variation (69 to 96%) could not be partitioned between the effects of IBE, IBD, and IBC. GEA methods can account differently for this confounded variation, and this could explain the small overlap of SNPs detected between Bayenv2 and LFMM. Our study illustrates the inherent difficulty of taking into account neutral structure in natural populations and the importance of sampling designs that maximize climatic variation, while minimizing collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral structure.
Signatures of local adaptation were detected in range‐wide samples of Pinus strobus, but such signatures were weaker in Pinus monticola. In both species, the vast majority of the variation was confounded between the effects of isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and postglacial colonization history. Such confounding of patterns of local adaptation with neutral population structure is expected to be common in nature and complicates the detection of signatures of local adaptation.</description><subject>Adaptation</subject><subject>Collinearity</subject><subject>Colonization</subject><subject>Empirical analysis</subject><subject>Gene flow</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>genetic‐environment associations</subject><subject>isolation by colonization</subject><subject>isolation by environment</subject><subject>landscape genetics</subject><subject>local adaptation</subject><subject>Natural populations</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Phenotypic plasticity</subject><subject>Pine trees</subject><subject>Pinus</subject><subject>Pinus monticola</subject><subject>Pinus strobus</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Population structure</subject><subject>Populations</subject><subject>Redundancy</subject><subject>Refugia</subject><subject>Risk reduction</subject><subject>Signatures</subject><subject>Single-nucleotide polymorphism</subject><issn>2045-7758</issn><issn>2045-7758</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks1u1DAUhSMEolXpghdAltjAYlrH_2GBhEZTQKrEpqwtx7mZuPLYwU46Gp6DB24yKVVBQsIbWz7fPdc_pyhel_iixJhcggV6QTjHz4pTghlfScnV8yfrk-I851s8DYEJw_JlcUIUppxweVr8uukA2c54D2ELKLYoQ2-SGVzYouy2wQxjgjwLPlrjkWlMP0xyDKhNcYeGLuZjncvRL_v1ATUuDyZYQCY0yEYfg_u5iN2kxHT4gI6NzVI77CPad24A1LsA-VXxojU-w_nDfFZ8v9rcrL-srr99_rr-dL2yTAq8kiBrYECpoVgxzEhbc24aBbbBXElJ28YKqBWjwHHd1ArXuDTYVJUUgilJz4qPi28_1jtoLIQhGa_75HYmHXQ0Tv-pBNfpbbzTvKyIUmIyePdgkOKPEfKgdy5b8N4EiGPWpeIVU1wI9T8oE6Wo6Iy-_Qu9jWMK00toMv2boCWR1US9XyibYs4J2sdzl1jPydBzMvScjIl98_Sij-TvHEzA5QLsnYfDv530Zr2hR8t7XNLEgg</recordid><startdate>201612</startdate><enddate>201612</enddate><creator>Nadeau, Simon</creator><creator>Meirmans, Patrick G.</creator><creator>Aitken, Sally N.</creator><creator>Ritland, Kermit</creator><creator>Isabel, Nathalie</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3519-4998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-8107</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201612</creationdate><title>The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines</title><author>Nadeau, Simon ; Meirmans, Patrick G. ; Aitken, Sally N. ; Ritland, Kermit ; Isabel, Nathalie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4760-7e7be4e33a3084042fb55ad8ecd058773fdc6eb843e50bdb80b01a0a997664873</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adaptation</topic><topic>Collinearity</topic><topic>Colonization</topic><topic>Empirical analysis</topic><topic>Gene flow</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>genetic‐environment associations</topic><topic>isolation by colonization</topic><topic>isolation by environment</topic><topic>landscape genetics</topic><topic>local adaptation</topic><topic>Natural populations</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Phenotypic plasticity</topic><topic>Pine trees</topic><topic>Pinus</topic><topic>Pinus monticola</topic><topic>Pinus strobus</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Population structure</topic><topic>Populations</topic><topic>Redundancy</topic><topic>Refugia</topic><topic>Risk reduction</topic><topic>Signatures</topic><topic>Single-nucleotide polymorphism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nadeau, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meirmans, Patrick G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aitken, Sally N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ritland, Kermit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isabel, Nathalie</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nadeau, Simon</au><au>Meirmans, Patrick G.</au><au>Aitken, Sally N.</au><au>Ritland, Kermit</au><au>Isabel, Nathalie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines</atitle><jtitle>Ecology and evolution</jtitle><addtitle>Ecol Evol</addtitle><date>2016-12</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>24</issue><spage>8649</spage><epage>8664</epage><pages>8649-8664</pages><issn>2045-7758</issn><eissn>2045-7758</eissn><abstract>Accurately detecting signatures of local adaptation using genetic‐environment associations (GEAs) requires controlling for neutral patterns of population structure to reduce the risk of false positives. However, a high degree of collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral population structure can greatly reduce power, and the performance of GEA methods in such case is rarely evaluated in empirical studies. In this study, we attempted to disentangle the effects of local adaptation and isolation by environment (IBE) from those of isolation by distance (IBD) and isolation by colonization from glacial refugia (IBC) using range‐wide samples in two white pine species. For this, SNPs from 168 genes, including 52 candidate genes for growth and phenology, were genotyped in 133 and 61 populations of Pinus strobus and P. monticola, respectively. For P. strobus and using all 153 SNPs, climate (IBE) did not significantly explained among‐population variation when controlling for IBD and IBC in redundancy analyses (RDAs). However, 26 SNPs were significantly associated with climate in single‐locus GEA analyses (Bayenv2 and LFMM), suggesting that local adaptation took place in the presence of high gene flow. For P. monticola, we found no evidence of IBE using RDAs and weaker signatures of local adaptation using GEA and FST outlier tests, consistent with adaptation via phenotypic plasticity. In both species, the majority of the explained among‐population variation (69 to 96%) could not be partitioned between the effects of IBE, IBD, and IBC. GEA methods can account differently for this confounded variation, and this could explain the small overlap of SNPs detected between Bayenv2 and LFMM. Our study illustrates the inherent difficulty of taking into account neutral structure in natural populations and the importance of sampling designs that maximize climatic variation, while minimizing collinearity between climatic gradients and neutral structure.
Signatures of local adaptation were detected in range‐wide samples of Pinus strobus, but such signatures were weaker in Pinus monticola. In both species, the vast majority of the variation was confounded between the effects of isolation by environment, isolation by distance, and postglacial colonization history. Such confounding of patterns of local adaptation with neutral population structure is expected to be common in nature and complicates the detection of signatures of local adaptation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>28035257</pmid><doi>10.1002/ece3.2550</doi><tpages>16</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3519-4998</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-8107</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2045-7758 |
ispartof | Ecology and evolution, 2016-12, Vol.6 (24), p.8649-8664 |
issn | 2045-7758 2045-7758 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5192886 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection); PubMed Central |
subjects | Adaptation Collinearity Colonization Empirical analysis Gene flow Genes genetic‐environment associations isolation by colonization isolation by environment landscape genetics local adaptation Natural populations Original Research Phenotypic plasticity Pine trees Pinus Pinus monticola Pinus strobus Population Population structure Populations Redundancy Refugia Risk reduction Signatures Single-nucleotide polymorphism |
title | The challenge of separating signatures of local adaptation from those of isolation by distance and colonization history: The case of two white pines |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T08%3A23%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20challenge%20of%20separating%20signatures%20of%20local%20adaptation%20from%20those%20of%20isolation%20by%20distance%20and%20colonization%20history:%20The%20case%20of%20two%20white%20pines&rft.jtitle=Ecology%20and%20evolution&rft.au=Nadeau,%20Simon&rft.date=2016-12&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=8649&rft.epage=8664&rft.pages=8649-8664&rft.issn=2045-7758&rft.eissn=2045-7758&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ece3.2550&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1859485668%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2035631279&rft_id=info:pmid/28035257&rfr_iscdi=true |