Joshua Miller

Dr. Joshua Miller

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

17Years (2010-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
12 November 2021 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MKMarty Kardos
Marty Kardos
EAEllie E. Armstrong
Ellie E. Armstrong
SFSarah W. Fitzpatrick
Sarah W. Fitzpatrick
SHSamantha Hauser
Samantha Hauser
PHPhilip W. Hedrick
Philip W. Hedrick
CFChris Funk
Chris Funk
The unprecedented rate of extinction calls for efficient use of genetics to help conserve biodiversity. Several recent genomic and simulation-based studies have argued that the field of conservation biology has placed too much focus on conserving genome-wide genetic variation, and that the field should instead focus on managing the subset of functional genetic variation that is thought to affect fitness. Here, we critically evaluate the feasibility and likely benefits of this approach in conservation. We find that population genetics theory and empirical results show that conserving genome-wide genetic variation is generally the best approach to prevent inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive potential from driving populations toward extinction. Focusing conservation efforts on presumably functional genetic variation will only be feasible occasionally, often misleading, and counterproductive when prioritized over genome-wide genetic variation. Given the increasing rate of habitat loss and other environmental changes, failure to recognize the detrimental effects of lost genome-wide genetic variation on long-term population viability will only worsen the biodiversity crisis.

14 June 2017 in Molecular Ecology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JJJasmine Janes
Jasmine Janes
JMJoshua Miller
Joshua Miller
JDJulian R. Dupuis
Julian R. Dupuis
RMRené M. Malenfant
René M. Malenfant
JGJamieson C. Gorrell
Jamieson C. Gorrell
RARose L. Andrew
Rose L. Andrew

19 October 2015 in Conservation Biology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
JHJill Hamilton
Jill Hamilton
JMJoshua Miller
Joshua Miller

12 April 2022 in Biological Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SHSean Hoban
Sean Hoban
FAFrederick I. Archer
Frederick I. Archer
LBLaura D. Bertola
Laura D. Bertola
JBJason G. Bragg
Jason G. Bragg
MBMartin Breed
Martin Breed
MHMargaret Hunter
Margaret Hunter
Biodiversity underlies ecosystem resilience, ecosystem function, sustainable economies, and human well‐being. Understanding how biodiversity sustains ecosystems under anthropogenic stressors and global environmental change will require new ways of deriving and applying biodiversity data. A major challenge is that biodiversity data and knowledge are scattered, biased, collected with numerous methods, and stored in inconsistent ways. The Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON) has developed the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) as fundamental metrics to help aggregate, harmonize, and interpret biodiversity observation data from diverse sources. Mapping and analyzing EBVs can help to evaluate how aspects of biodiversity are distributed geographically and how they change over time. EBVs are also intended to serve as inputs and validation to forecast the status and trends of biodiversity, and to support policy and decision making. Here, we assess the feasibility of implementing Genetic Composition EBVs (Genetic EBVs), which are metrics of within‐species genetic variation. We review and bring together numerous areas of the field of genetics and evaluate how each contributes to global and regional genetic biodiversity monitoring with respect to theory, sampling logistics, metadata, archiving, data aggregation, modeling, and technological advances. We propose four Genetic EBVs: (i) Genetic Diversity; (ii) Genetic Differentiation; (iii) Inbreeding; and (iv) Effective Population Size (Ne). We rank Genetic EBVs according to their relevance, sensitivity to change, generalizability, scalability, feasibility and data availability. We outline the workflow for generating genetic data underlying the Genetic EBVs, and review advances and needs in archiving genetic composition data and metadata. We discuss how Genetic EBVs can be operationalized by visualizing EBVs in space and time across species and by forecasting Genetic EBVs beyond current observations using various modeling approaches. Our review then explores challenges of aggregation, standardization, and costs of operationalizing the Genetic EBVs, as well as future directions and opportunities to maximize their uptake globally in research and policy. The collection, annotation, and availability of genetic data has made major advances in the past decade, each of which contributes to the practical and standardized framework for large‐scale genetic observation reporting. Rapid advances in DNA sequencing technology present new opportunities, but also challenges for operationalizing Genetic EBVs for biodiversity monitoring regionally and globally. With these advances, genetic composition monitoring is starting to be integrated into global conservation policy, which can help support the foundation of all biodiversity and species' long‐term persistence in the face of environmental change. We conclude with a summary of concrete steps for researchers and policy makers for advancing operationalization of Genetic EBVs. The technical and analytical foundations of Genetic EBVs are well developed, and conservation practitioners should anticipate their increasing application as efforts emerge to scale up genetic biodiversity monitoring regionally and globally.

4 August 2020 in Heredity
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JMJoshua Miller
Joshua Miller
CCCatherine I. Cullingham
Catherine I. Cullingham
RPRhiannon M. Peery
Rhiannon M. Peery
Inference of genetic clusters is a key aim of population genetics, sparking development of numerous analytical methods. Within these, there is a conceptual divide between finding de novo structure versus assessment of a priori groups. Recently developed, Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC), combines discriminant analysis (DA) with principal component (PC) analysis. When applying DAPC, the groups used in the DA (specified a priori or described de novo) need to be carefully assessed. While DAPC has rapidly become a core technique, the sensitivity of the method to misspecification of groups and how it is being empirically applied, are unknown. To address this, we conducted a simulation study examining the influence of a priori versus de novo group designations, and a literature review of how DAPC is being applied. We found that with a priori groupings, distance between genetic clusters reflected underlying FST. However, when migration rates were high and groups were described de novo there was considerable inaccuracy, both in terms of the number of genetic clusters suggested and placement of individuals into those clusters. Nearly all (90.1%) of 224 studies surveyed used DAPC to find de novo clusters, and for the majority (62.5%) the stated goal matched the results. However, most studies (52.3%) omit key run parameters, preventing repeatability and transparency. Therefore, we present recommendations for standard reporting of parameters used in DAPC analyses. The influence of groupings in genetic clustering is not unique to DAPC, and researchers need to consider their goal and which methods will be most appropriate.

18 August 2021 in Nature Reviews Genetics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DLDeborah Leigh
Deborah Leigh
CRCharles B. van Rees
Charles B. van Rees
KMKatie L. Millette
Katie L. Millette
MBMartin Breed
Martin Breed
CSChloé Schmidt
Chloé Schmidt
IPIvan Paz-Vinas
Ivan Paz-Vinas