Search for: All records

A fragmented landscape, which contains a patchwork of vegetated hospitable areas and a barren intervening matrix, may reduce gene flow in a population and over time result in an increase in population structure.

Genetic structure in host species is often used to predict disease spread. However, host and pathogen genetic variation may be incongruent. Understanding landscape factors that have either concordant or divergent influence on host and pathogen genetic structure is crucial for wildlife disease management. Devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) was first observed in 1996 and has spread throughout almost the entire Tasmanian devil geographic range, causing dramatic population declines. Whereas DFTD is predominantly spread via biting among adults, devils typically disperse as juveniles, which experience low DFTD prevalence. Thus, we predicted little association between devil and tumour population structure and that environmental factors influencing gene flow differ between devils and tumours. We employed a comparative landscape genetics framework to test the influence of environmental factors on patterns of isolation by resistance (IBR) and isolation by environment (IBE) in devils and DFTD. Although we found evidence for broad‐scale costructuring between devils and tumours, we found no relationship between host and tumour individual genetic distances. Further, the factors driving the spatial distribution of genetic variation differed for each. Devils exhibited a strong IBR pattern driven by major roads, with no evidence of IBE. By contrast, tumours showed little evidence for IBR and a weak IBE pattern with respect to elevation in one of two tumour clusters we identify herein. Our results warrant caution when inferring pathogen spread using host population genetic structure and suggest that reliance on environmental barriers to host connectivity may be ineffective for managing the spread of wildlife diseases. Our findings demonstrate the utility of comparative landscape genetics for identifying differential factors driving host dispersal and pathogen transmission.

New computational methods and next‐generation sequencing (NGS) approaches have enabled the use of thousands or hundreds of thousands of genetic markers to address previously intractable questions. The methods and massive marker sets present both new data analysis challenges and opportunities to visualize, understand, and apply population and conservation genomic data in novel ways. The large scale and complexity of NGS data also increases the expertise and effort required to thoroughly and thoughtfully analyze and interpret data. To aid in this endeavor, a recent workshop entitled “Population Genomic Data Analysis,” also known as “ConGen 2017,” was held at the University of Montana. The ConGen workshop brought 15 instructors together with knowledge in a wide range of topics including NGS data filtering, genome assembly, genomic monitoring of effective population size, migration modeling, detecting adaptive genomic variation, genomewide association analysis, inbreeding depression, and landscape genomics. Here, we summarize the major themes of the workshop and the important take‐home points that were offered to students throughout. We emphasize increasing participation by women in population and conservation genomics as a vital step for the advancement of science. Some important themes that emerged during the workshop included the need for data visualization and its importance in finding problematic data, the effects of data filtering choices on downstream population genomic analyses, the increasing availability of whole‐genome sequencing, and the new challenges it presents. Our goal here is to help motivate and educate a worldwide audience to improve population genomic data analysis and interpretation, and thereby advance the contribution of genomics to molecular ecology, evolutionary biology, and especially to the conservation of biodiversity.