Landscape genetics of California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): the roles of ecological and historical factors in generating differentiation
Article first published online: 12 MAR 2009
© 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Volume 18, Issue 9, pages 1848–1862, May 2009
How to Cite
PEASE, K. M., FREEDMAN, A. H., POLLINGER, J. P., MCCORMACK, J. E., BUERMANN, W., RODZEN, J., BANKS, J., MEREDITH, E., BLEICH, V. C., SCHAEFER, R. J., JONES, K. and WAYNE, R. K. (2009), Landscape genetics of California mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus): the roles of ecological and historical factors in generating differentiation. Molecular Ecology, 18: 1848–1862. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04112.x
- Issue published online: 17 APR 2009
- Article first published online: 12 MAR 2009
- Received 27 August 2008; revision received 20 December 2008; accepted 7 January 2009
Fig. S1 Mule deer subspecies ranges and sampling locations of 587 deer in California.
Fig. S2 Maxent predictions of modern deer distributions for each of the five genetic clusters as identified by Structure using all environmental variables.
Fig. S3 Maxent predictions of projected future deer distributions for each of the five genetic clusters and their overlap under climate change.
Fig. S4 Spatial extent of overlapping Maxent predictions between mule deer genetic clusters for the Last Glacial Maximum, the present, and the future under a CCM3 scenario of doubled CO2 atmospheric concentrations.
Fig. S5 Plot of L(K) vs. K (one iteration for each K value) for the initial Structure analysis of 587 genotyped deer samples for K = 1 to 10, showing a maximum in L(K) at K = 8.
Fig. S6 Plot of ΔK (Evanno et al. 2005) vs. K (five iterations per K value) for K values up to K = 10, showing a maximum in ΔK at K = 4.
Fig. S7 Plots of genetic cluster assignment for 587 California deer grouped by county and based on Structure analysis for K values of 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Table S1 Observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity, allelic number (A), and allelic richness (AR) for all deer and for the five clusters identified by Structure.
Table S2 Proportion of deer from each Structure group that fall within each Jepson ecoregion
Table S3 Correlations between CCA species axes and the selected environmental variables
Table S4 Niche model summary statistics and results from threshold-dependent and threshold-independent significance tests based upon 10-fold validation
Table S5 Molecular analysis of variance for microsatellite data (15 microsatellites and 587 samples) at the population (northwest, central, east, southern, San Diego) and group (northwest/central vs. east/southern/San Diego) levels
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
|MEC_4112_sm_TableS1.doc||214K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_TableS2-S5.doc||95K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS1.pdf||1007K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS2.pdf||1530K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS3.pdf||1795K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS4.pdf||9K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS5.pdf||35K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS6.pdf||21K||Supporting info item|
|MEC_4112_sm_FigS7.pdf||410K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.