Back

Genomic offset is not predictive of recent demographic trends in Lycaeides butterflies

Reis, G. A.; Forister, M.; Lucas, L.; Shapiro, A.; Fordyce, J.; Nice, C.; Gompert, Z.

2026-06-25 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.06.21.733565 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Genomic offset (GO) is increasingly used to predict population maladaptation risk under climate change, with larger offsets assumed to indicate greater vulnerability. Despite rapid adoption in conservation planning, it remains unclear how sensitive GO estimates are to key methodological choices, including SNP set composition, genotype-environment association (GEA) methods, and the specific GO metric used. Empirical validation against observed population dynamics also remains limited. Here, we evaluate the methodological robustness and predictive performance of GO using multidecadal demographic monitoring data from Lycaeides butterflies, a system with short generation times and high fecundity that may facilitate rapid adaptive responses. GO estimates were broadly consistent across SNP sets, regardless of composition or size, with climate-associated and randomly selected SNPs yielding largely concordant values. Consistency across GEA methods was moderate and depended on the SNP set used. In contrast, GO metrics differed substantially in the magnitude of maladaptation estimated, suggesting they capture distinct biological signals and should not be treated as interchangeable. Crucially, GO was a poor predictor of observed population trends, regardless of SNP set composition, GO metric, or GEA method, both at sites used to fit GEA models and when extrapolated to independent demographic sites. These findings suggest that, while GO provides a valuable conceptual framework for assessing potential maladaptation, its quantitative estimates and predictive power are sensitive to methodological choices and species-specific biological context. We therefore urge careful alignment of GO metric assumptions with conservation objectives, along with rigorous empirical validation, before GO estimates are used to inform management decisions.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Evolutionary Applications
108 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.2%
2
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
14.6%
3
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
9.6%
4
Heredity
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.2%
5
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
393 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Heredity
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
7
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
8
Molecular Ecology Resources
171 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.2%
9
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.6%
11
Peer Community Journal
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
12
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
13
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.9%
14
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
24 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
15
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Diversity and Distributions
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Journal of Animal Ecology
75 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Evolution
225 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Journal of Biogeography
46 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 38%
1.0%
22
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 71%
1.0%
23
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
Conservation Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%
25
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
26
G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics
35 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%