Landscape genetics aims to assess the effect of the landscape on intraspecific genetic structure. To quantify interdeme landscape structure, landscape genetics primarily uses landscape resistance surfaces (RSs) and least-cost paths or straight-line transects. However, both approaches have drawbacks. Parameterization of RSs is a subjective process, and least-cost paths represent a single migration route. A transect-based approach might oversimplify migration patterns by assuming rectilinear migration. To overcome these limitations, we combined these two methods in a new landscape genetic approach: least-cost transect analysis (LCTA). Habitat-matrix RSs were used to create least-cost paths, which were subsequently buffered to form transects in which the abundance of several landscape elements was quantified. To maintain objectivity, this analysis was repeated so that each landscape element was in turn regarded as migration habitat. The relationship between explanatory variables and genetic distances was then assessed following a mixed modelling approach to account for the nonindependence of values in distance matrices. Subsequently, the best fitting model was selected using the statistic. We applied LCTA and the mixed modelling approach to an empirical genetic dataset on the endangered damselfly, Coenagrion mercuriale. We compared the results to those obtained from traditional least-cost, effective and resistance distance analysis. We showed that LCTA is an objective approach that identifies both the most probable migration habitat and landscape elements that either inhibit or facilitate gene flow. Although we believe the statistical approach to be an improvement for the analysis of distance matrices in landscape genetics, more stringent testing is needed.

Most landscape genetic studies assess the impact of landscape elements on species' dispersal and gene flow. Many of these studies perform their analysis on all possible population pairs in a study area and do not explicitly consider the effects of spatial scale and population network topology on their results. Here, we examined the effects of spatial scale and population network topology on the outcome of a landscape genetic analysis. Additionally, we tested whether the relevant spatial scale of landscape genetic analysis could be defined by population network topology or by isolation-by-distance (IBD) patterns. A data set of the wetland grasshopper Stethophyma grossum, collected in a fragmented agricultural landscape, was used to analyse population network topology, IBD patterns and dispersal habitats, using least-cost transect analysis. Landscape genetic analyses neglecting spatial scale and population network topology resulted in models with low fits, with which a most likely dispersal habitat could not be identified. In contrast, analyses considering spatial scale and population network topology resulted in high model fits by restricting landscape genetic analysis to smaller scales (0-3 km) and neighbouring populations, as represented by a Gabriel graph. These models also successfully identified a likely dispersal habitat of S. grossum. The above results suggest that spatial scale and potentially population network topology should be more explicitly considered in future landscape genetic analyses.

Many landscape genetic studies promise results that can be applied in conservation management. However, only few landscape genetic studies have been used by practitioners. Here, we identified scientific topics in landscape genetics that need to be addressed before results can more successfully be applied in conservation management. For each topic, weaknesses of common practice in landscape genetic analysis are described by presenting examples from current studies and further recommendations for improvements are outlined. First, we suggest matching the extent of the study area with those of conservation management units and the study species' dispersal potential when designing landscape genetic studies. Second, the quality of the underlying statistical models should be optimised, and models should include variables that are useful for management implementation. Third, to further improve the applicability of landscape genetic studies, thresholds for landscape effects on gene flow should be identified. Fourth, landscape genetic models could be used for the development of conservation planning tools, which ideally also incorporate the above described thresholds.Fifth and as discussed in earlier studies, the use of multiple species and replication at the landscape scale is recommended. Although it appears that only few landscape genetic studies have been applied in practical management until now, examples presented in this article show that landscape genetic methods can provide important information to formulate concrete management implications. Thus, addressing the above-mentioned scientific topics in landscape genetic studies would enhance the benefits of their results for practitioners.