Seeing the Forest for the trees: Assessing genetic offset predictions with Gradient Forest
Laruson, A. J.; Fitzpatrick, M. C.; Keller, S. R.; Haller, B. C.; Lotterhos, K. E.
Show abstract
Gradient Forest (GF) is increasingly being used to forecast climate change impacts, but remains mostly untested for this purpose. We explore its robustness to assumption violations, and relationship to measures of fitness, using SLiM simulations with explicit genome architecture and a spatial metapopulation. We evaluate measures of GF offset in: (1) a neutral model with no environmental adaptation; (2) a monogenic "population genetic" model with a single environmentally adapted locus; and (3) a polygenic "quantitative genetic" model with two adaptive traits, each adapting to a different environment. Although we found GF Offset to be broadly correlated with fitness offsets under both single locus and polygenic architectures. It could also be confounded by neutral demography, genomic architecture, and the nature of the adaptive environment. GF Offset is a promising tool, but it is important to understand its limitations and underlying assumptions, especially when used in the context of forecasting maladaptation.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic architecture influences when and how hybridization contributes to colonization 96%
- Hill-Robertson interference may bias the inference of fitness effects of new mutations in highly selfing species 96%
- Insights from Fisher's geometric model on the likelihood of speciation under different histories of environmental change 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Density-dependent selection during range expansion affects expansion load in life-history traits 96%
- The genetic consequences of range expansion and its influence on diploidization in polyploids 95%
- The effect of genetic architecture and selfing on the capacity of a population to expand its range 95%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.