Using a genetic network to parameterize a landscape resistance surface for fishers, Martes pennanti
Article first published online: 29 AUG 2011
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Volume 20, Issue 19, pages 3978–3988, October 2011
How to Cite
GARROWAY, C. J., BOWMAN, J. and WILSON, P. J. (2011), Using a genetic network to parameterize a landscape resistance surface for fishers, Martes pennanti. Molecular Ecology, 20: 3978–3988. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05243.x
- Issue published online: 26 SEP 2011
- Article first published online: 29 AUG 2011
- Received 21 June 2010; revision received 4 July 2011; accepted 7 July 2011
Fig. S1 A two-dimensional genetic network representing the genetic relationship among fishers (Martes pennanti) sampled from 3q locations in Ontario, Canada during 2000–2003 and profiled at 16 microsatellite loci. Edge length is proportional to the genetic distance between populations. The network was built following Dyer &Nason (2004) using the Genetstudio software (Dyer 2009). It was first calculated by Garroway et al. (2008). This network is modified in that here we did not include nodes for the Adirondack region of New York and Gatineau, Quebec, due to differences in data collection nor did we include the Bruce Peninsula, Ontario in order to reduce the effects of artificially inflated resistance values associated with map edges (Koen et al. 2010). We used the shortest path between nodes, with distance calculated as the sum of edge weights, as our measure of genetic distance. This measure has recently been called both ‘graph distance’ (Dyer &Nason 2004; Garroway et al. 2008) and ‘conditional genetic distance (cGD; Dyer et al. 2010) in landscape genetics studies. We used this distance measure as a response variable to model landscape genetic resistance to gene flow in fishers. The network is projected using Cytoscape 2.7.0 (Shannon et al. 2003).
Fig. S2 Labelled map of sample sites. Below are sample sizes from each site. Angelsea-Grimsthorpe (AG; n = 16), Anson-Lutterworth (AL; n = 25), Algonquin (AQ; n = 20), Anstruther (AS; n = 24), Badgerow (BA; n = 22), Burton-McKenzie (BK; n = 16), Belmont (BL; n = 7), Blair-Mowat (BM, n = 26), Broughman (BR; n = 23), Carlow-Bangor (CB; n = 20), Carling-Ferguson (CF; n = 8), Conger-Freeman (CM; n = 15), Dalhousie (DL; n = 20), Darling (DR; n = 22), Escott-Yonge (EY; n = 20), Falconer (FL; n = 22), Fraser-Richards (FR; n = 21), Galway (GW; n = 20), Hungerford-Huntington (HH; n = 14), Kennebec (KB; n = 23); Loughborough-Bedford (LB; n = 31), Lyndoch (LN; n = 19), Monteith-Christie (MC; n = 26), Marmora-Lake (ML; n = 32), McNab (MN; n = 24), Montague (MT; n = 21), Olrig Cluster (OL; n = 14), Orillia-Ramara (OR; n = 17), Prescott (PR; n = 48), Ramsey-Huntley (RH; n = 20), Ross (RO; n = 19).
|MEC_5243_sm_FigS1-S2.doc||1498K||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.