Conservation and the Genetics of Populations

By Fred W. Allendorf, Gordon H. Luikart and Sally N. Aitken

Loss of biodiversity is among the greatest problems facing the world today. Conservation and the Genetics of Populations gives a comprehensive overview of the essential background, concepts, and tools needed to understand how genetic information can be used to conserve species threatened with extinction, and to manage species of ecological or commercial importance. New molecular techniques, statistical methods, and computer programs, genetic principles, and methods are becoming increasingly useful in the conservation of biological diversity. Using a balance of data and theory, coupled with basic and applied research examples, this book examines genetic and phenotypic variation in natural populations, the principles and mechanisms of evolutionary change, the interpretation of genetic data from natural populations, and how these can be applied to conservation. The book includes examples from plants, animals, and microbes in wild and captive populations.

This second edition contains new chapters on Climate Change and Exploited Populations as well as new sections on genomics, genetic monitoring, emerging diseases, metagenomics, and more. One-third of the references in this edition were published after the first edition.

Each of the 22 chapters and the statistical appendix have a Guest Box written by an expert in that particular topic (including James Crow, Louis Bernatchez, Loren Rieseberg, Rick Shine, and Lisette Waits). 

This book is essential for advanced undergraduate and graduate students of conservation genetics, natural resource management, and conservation biology, as well as professional conservation biologists working for wildlife and habitat management agencies.

Additional resources for this book can be found at: www.wiley.com/go/allendorf/populations. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Oct 5, 2012
• ISBN: 9781118408575

Book preview

Table of Contents

Cover

Companion website

Title page

Copyright page

Guest Box authors

Preface to the second edition

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

DEDICATION

Preface to the first edition

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

List of symbols

PART I: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1.1 GENETICS AND CIVILIZATION

1.2 WHAT SHOULD WE CONSERVE?

1.3 HOW SHOULD WE CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY?

1.4 APPLICATIONS OF GENETICS TO CONSERVATION

1.5 THE FUTURE

CHAPTER 2 Phenotypic variation in natural populations

2.1 COLOR PATTERN

2.2 MORPHOLOGY

2.3 BEHAVIOR

2.4 PHENOLOGY

2.5 DIFFERENCES AMONG POPULATIONS

2.6 NONGENETIC INHERITANCE

CHAPTER 3 Genetic variation in natural populations: chromosomes and proteins

3.1 CHROMOSOMES

3.2 PROTEIN ELECTROPHORESIS

3.3 GENETIC VARIATION WITHIN NATURAL POPULATIONS

3.4 GENETIC DIVERGENCE AMONG POPULATIONS

CHAPTER 4 Genetic variation in natural populations: DNA

4.1 MITOCHONDRIAL AND CHLOROPLAST ORGANELLE DNA

4.2 SINGLE-COPY NUCLEAR LOCI

4.3 MULTIPLE LOCUS TECHNIQUES

4.4 GENOMIC TOOLS AND MARKERS

4.5 TRANSCRIPTOMICS

4.6 OTHER ‘OMICS’ AND THE FUTURE

PART II: MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE

CHAPTER 5 Random mating populations: Hardy-Weinberg principle

5.1 HARDY-WEINBERG PRINCIPLE

5.2 HARDY-WEINBERG PROPORTIONS

5.3 TESTING FOR HARDY-WEINBERG PROPORTIONS

5.4 ESTIMATION OF ALLELE FREQUENCIES

5.5 SEX-LINKED LOCI

5.6 ESTIMATION OF GENETIC VARIATION

CHAPTER 6 Small populations and genetic drift

6.1 GENETIC DRIFT

6.2 CHANGES IN ALLELE FREQUENCY

6.3 LOSS OF GENETIC VARIATION: THE INBREEDING EFFECT OF SMALL POPULATIONS

6.4 LOSS OF ALLELIC DIVERSITY

6.5 FOUNDER EFFECT

6.6 GENOTYPIC PROPORTIONS IN SMALL POPULATIONS

6.7 FITNESS EFFECTS OF GENETIC DRIFT

CHAPTER 7 Effective population size

7.1 CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE

7.2 UNEQUAL SEX RATIO

7.3 NONRANDOM NUMBER OF PROGENY

7.4 FLUCTUATING POPULATION SIZE

7.5 OVERLAPPING GENERATIONS

7.6 VARIANCE EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE

7.7 CYTOPLASMIC GENES

7.8 GENE GENEALOGIES, THE COALESCENT, AND LINEAGE SORTING

7.9 LIMITATIONS OF EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE

7.10 EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE IN NATURAL POPULATIONS

CHAPTER 8 Natural selection

8.1 FITNESS

8.2 SINGLE LOCUS WITH TWO ALLELES

8.3 MULTIPLE ALLELES

8.4 FREQUENCY-DEPENDENT SELECTION

8.5 NATURAL SELECTION IN SMALL POPULATIONS

8.6 NATURAL SELECTION AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 9 Population subdivision

9.1 F-STATISTICS

9.2 SPATIAL PATTERNS OF RELATEDNESS WITHIN LOCAL POPULATIONS

9.3 GENETIC DIVERGENCE AMONG POPULATIONS AND GENE FLOW

9.4 GENE FLOW AND GENETIC DRIFT

9.5 CONTINUOUSLY DISTRIBUTED POPULATIONS

9.6 CYTOPLASMIC GENES AND SEX-LINKED MARKERS

9.7 GENE FLOW AND NATURAL SELECTION

9.8 LIMITATIONS OF FST AND OTHER MEASURES OF SUBDIVISION

9.9 ESTIMATION OF GENE FLOW

9.10 POPULATION SUBDIVISION AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 10 Multiple loci

10.1 GAMETIC DISEQUILIBRIUM

10.2 SMALL POPULATION SIZE

10.3 NATURAL SELECTION

10.4 POPULATION SUBDIVISION

10.5 HYBRIDIZATION

10.6 ESTIMATION OF GAMETIC DISEQUILIBRIUM

10.7 MULTIPLE LOCI AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 11 Quantitative genetics

11.1 HERITABILITY

11.2 SELECTION ON QUANTITATIVE TRAITS

11.3 FINDING GENES UNDERLYING QUANTITATIVE TRAITS

11.4 LOSS OF QUANTITATIVE GENETIC VARIATION

11.5 DIVERGENCE AMONG POPULATIONS

11.6 QUANTITATIVE GENETICS AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 12 Mutation

12.1 PROCESS OF MUTATION

12.2 SELECTIVELY NEUTRAL MUTATIONS

12.3 HARMFUL MUTATIONS

12.4 ADVANTAGEOUS MUTATIONS

12.5 RECOVERY FROM A BOTTLENECK

PART III: GENETICS AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 13 Inbreeding depression

13.1 PEDIGREE ANALYSIS

13.2 GENE DROP ANALYSIS

13.3 ESTIMATION OF F WITH MOLECULAR MARKERS

13.4 CAUSES OF INBREEDING DEPRESSION

13.5 MEASUREMENT OF INBREEDING DEPRESSION

13.6 GENETIC LOAD AND PURGING

13.7 INBREEDING AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 14 Demography and extinction

14.1 ESTIMATION OF CENSUS POPULATION SIZE

14.2 INBREEDING DEPRESSION AND EXTINCTION

14.3 POPULATION VIABILITY ANALYSIS

14.4 LOSS OF PHENOTYPIC VARIATION

14.5 LOSS OF EVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL

14.6 MITOCHONDRIAL DNA

14.7 MUTATIONAL MELTDOWN

14.8 LONG-TERM PERSISTENCE

14.9 THE 50/500 RULE

CHAPTER 15 Metapopulations and fragmentation

15.1 THE METAPOPULATION CONCEPT

15.2 GENETIC VARIATION IN METAPOPULATIONS

15.3 EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE OF METAPOPULATIONS

15.4 POPULATION DIVERGENCE AND CONNECTIVITY

15.5 GENETIC RESCUE

15.6 LANDSCAPE GENETICS

15.7 LONG-TERM POPULATION VIABILITY

CHAPTER 16 Units of conservation

16.1 WHAT SHOULD WE PROTECT?

16.2 SYSTEMATICS AND TAXONOMY

16.3 PHYLOGENY RECONSTRUCTION

16.4 GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN SPECIES

16.5 UNITS OF CONSERVATION

16.6 INTEGRATING GENETIC, PHENOTYPIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

16.7 COMMUNITIES

CHAPTER 17 Hybridization

17.1 NATURAL HYBRIDIZATION

17.2 ANTHROPOGENIC HYBRIDIZATION

17.3 FITNESS CONSEQUENCES OF HYBRIDIZATION

17.4 DETECTING AND DESCRIBING HYBRIDIZATION

17.5 HYBRIDIZATION AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 18 Exploited populations

18.1 LOSS OF GENETIC VARIATION

18.2 UNNATURAL SELECTION

18.3 SPATIAL STRUCTURE

18.4 EFFECTS OF RELEASES

18.5 MANAGEMENT AND RECOVERY OF EXPLOITED POPULATIONS

CHAPTER 19 Conservation breeding and restoration

19.1 THE ROLE OF CONSERVATION BREEDING

19.2 REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND GENOME BANKING

19.3 FOUNDING POPULATIONS FOR CONSERVATION BREEDING PROGRAMS

19.4 GENETIC DRIFT IN CAPTIVE POPULATIONS

19.5 NATURAL SELECTION AND ADAPTATION TO CAPTIVITY

19.6 GENETIC MANAGEMENT OF CONSERVATION BREEDING PROGRAMS

19.7 SUPPORTIVE BREEDING

19.8 REINTRODUCTIONS AND TRANSLOCATIONS

CHAPTER 20 Invasive species

20.1 WHY ARE INVASIVE SPECIES SO SUCCESSFUL?

20.2 GENETIC ANALYSIS OF INTRODUCED SPECIES

20.3 ESTABLISHMENT AND SPREAD OF INVASIVE SPECIES

20.4 HYBRIDIZATION AS A STIMULUS FOR INVASIVENESS

20.5 ERADICATION, MANAGEMENT, AND CONTROL

20.6 EMERGING DISEASES AND PARASITES

CHAPTER 21 Climate change

21.1 PREDICTIONS AND UNCERTAINTY ABOUT FUTURE CLIMATES

21.2 PHENOTYPIC PLASTICITY

21.3 MATERNAL EFFECTS AND EPIGENETICS

21.4 ADAPTATION

21.5 SPECIES RANGE SHIFTS

21.6 EXTIRPATION AND EXTINCTION

21.7 MANAGEMENT IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

CHAPTER 22 Genetic identification and monitoring

22.1 SPECIES IDENTIFICATION

22.2 METAGENOMICS AND SPECIES COMPOSITION

22.3 INDIVIDUAL IDENTIFICATION

22.4 PARENTAGE AND RELATEDNESS

22.5 POPULATION ASSIGNMENT AND COMPOSITION ANALYSIS

22.6 GENETIC MONITORING

APPENDIX Probability and statistics

A1 PARADIGMS

A2 PROBABILITY

A3 STATISTICAL MEASURES AND DISTRIBUTIONS

A4 FREQUENTIST HYPOTHESIS TESTING, STATISTICAL ERRORS, AND POWER

A5 MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD

A6 BAYESIAN APPROACHES AND MCMC (MARKOV CHAIN MONTE CARLO)

A7 APPROXIMATE BAYESIAN COMPUTATION (ABC)

A8 PARAMETER ESTIMATION, ACCURACY, AND PRECISION

A9 PERFORMANCE TESTING

A10 THE COALESCENT AND GENEALOGICAL INFORMATION

Glossary

References

Index

Companion website

This book has a companion website at:

www.wiley.com/go/allendorf/populations

with additional resources

Title page

This edition first published 2013 © 2013 by Fred W. Allendorf, Gordon Luikart and Sally N. Aitken.

Blackwell Publishing was acquired by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Blackwell’s publishing program has been merged with Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business to form Wiley-Blackwell.

Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK

The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Allendorf, Frederick William.

 Conservation and the genetics of populations / Fred W. Allendorf, Gordon Luikart, Sally N. Aitken; with illustrations by Agostinho Antunes. – 2nd ed.

p. cm.

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 ISBN 978-0-470-67146-7 (cloth) – ISBN 978-0-470-67145-0 (pbk.) 1. Biodiversity conservation. 2. Population genetics. 3. Evolutionary genetics. I. Luikart, Gordon. II. Aitken, Sally N. III. Title.

 QH75.A42 2013

 333.95'16–dc23

2012016197

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.

Cover image: © Lee Rentz Photography. Clark’s nutcracker feeding on whitebark pine. Whitebark pine seeds are a crucial food resource for many animal species (e.g., Clark’s nutcracker and grizzly bears). Whitebark pine currently are threatened by an introduced pathogen (Chapter 20 Invasive Species) and by climate change (Chapter 21 Climate Change).

Cover design by: www.simonlevyassociates.co.uk

Guest Box Authors

C. Scott Baker, Marine Mammal Institute and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Newport, Oregon, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 22.

Louis Bernatchez, Département de biologie, Université Laval, Quebec, Canada ([e-mail]). Chapter 4.

David Coates, Department of Environment and Conservation, Western Australia, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 16.

David W. Coltman, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada ([e-mail]). Chapter 11.

William A. Cresko, Institute of Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 8.

James F. Crow, Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Appendix (1916–2012).

Chris J. Foote, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Malaspina University College, Nainamo, British Columbia, Canada ([e-mail]). Chapter 2.

Steven J. Franks, Department of Biology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 21.

Birgita D. Hansen, Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 5.

Paul A. Hohenlohe, Institute for Bioinformatics and Evolutionary Studies, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 8.

Menna E. Jones, School of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 6.

Lukas F. Keller, Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland ([e-mail]). Chapter 13.

Robert C. Lacy, Department of Conservation Science, Chicago Zoological Society, Brookfield, Illinois, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 19.

Guðrún Marteinsdóttir, Institute of Biology, University of Iceland, Sturlugata, Iceland ([e-mail]). Chapter 18.

Craig R. Miller, Departments of Mathematics and Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 7.

L. Scott Mills, Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 1.

B.G. Murray, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand ([e-mail]). Chapter 14.

Michael W. Nachman, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 12.

M. Pickup, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ([e-mail]). Chapter 14.

Loren H. Rieseberg, University of British Columbia, Department of Botany, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and Indiana University, Department of Biology, Bloomington, Indiana, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 17.

Michael K. Schwartz, Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 9.

Richard Shine, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 20.

Michael E. Soulé, 212 Colorado Ave, Paonia, Colorado, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 1.

Paul Sunnucks, School of Biological Sciences and Australian Centre for Biodiversity, Monash University, Victoria, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 5.

Jody M. Tucker, Sequoia National Forest, US Forest Service, Porterville, California, USA, and Wildlife Biology Program, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 9.

Elaina M. Tuttle, Department of Biology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 3.

Robert C. Vrijenhoek, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, California, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 15.

Lisette P. Waits, Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 7.

Robin S. Waples, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, USA ([e-mail]). Chapter 10.

Andrew Young, Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, CSIRO Plant Industry, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia ([e-mail]). Chapter 14.

Preface to the Second Edition

Truth is a creation, not a discovery.

R.H. Blyth

This second edition is an updated and expanded version of our book published in 2007. The need for applying genetics to problems in conservation has continued to increase. In addition, many important technological and conceptual developments have changed the field of conservation genetics over the least five years. We have added new chapters on climate change and on genetic effects of harvest (e.g., hunting and fishing), and have extensively revised all other chapters. In an effect to restrict the size of this new edition, we have moved the end of the chapter questions to the book’s website. A new edition is needed to keep pace with the changes, to remain a useful overview and synthesis, and to help advance the field. Nearly one-third of the over 1800 references in this book were published after the first edition.

We are excited to have added Sally Aitken as a coauthor. Sally was a reviewer of our first edition for Wiley-Blackwell. Sally’s review and suggested changes were so helpful that she should have been an author of that edition!

As we said in the Preface of the first edition, this book is not an argument for the importance of gen­etics in conservation. Rather, it is designed to provide the reader with the appropriate background and conceptual understanding to apply genetics to problems in conservation. The primary current causes of extinction are anthropogenic changes that affect ecological characteristics of populations (habitat loss, fragmen­tation, introduced species, etc.). However, genetic information and principles can be invaluable in developing conservation plans for species threatened with such effects. Phil Hedrick (2007) suggested in his review of the first edition that we should have made more of a sales pitch for the successes of conservation genetics, rather than our very even-handed approach. We do not agree. We are advocates for conservation, not genetics.

We have strived for a balance between theory, empirical data, and statistical analysis in this text. Empirical population genetics depends upon this balance (see Figure i.1). The effort to measure and understand the evolutionary significance of genetic variation in natural populations began with the rediscovery of Mendel’s principles in the early 1900s. For many years, empirical observation of genetic variation lagged far behind the development of sophisticated theory by some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century (e.g., J.B.S. Haldane, R.A. Fisher, and Sewall Wright). Today it is relatively easy to obtain and analyze enormous amounts of information on genetic variation (e.g., markers or genome sequences) in any species.

Figure i.1 The application of population genetics to understand genetic variation in natural populations relies upon a balance of understanding the appropriate theory, collecting appropriate data, and understanding its analysis.

fpref01f001

There are a wide variety of computer programs available to analyze data and estimate parameters of interest. However, the ease of collecting and analyzing data has led to an unfortunate and potentially dangerous reduction in the emphasis on understanding theory in the training of population and conservation geneticists. Understanding theory remains crucial for correctly interpreting outputs from computer programs and statistical analyses. For example, the most powerful software programs that estimate important parameters, such as effective population size (Chapter 7) and gametic disequilibrium (Chapter 10), are not useful if their assumptions and limitations are not understood. We are still disturbed when we read statements in the literature that the loci studied are not linked because they are not in linkage (gametic) disequilibrium.

The tools being used by molecular population geneticists are changing rapidly. Deciding which techniques to include in Chapter 4 was difficult. We have added new genomics (and other ‘omics’) information and still include some techniques that are no longer in use (e.g., minisatellites) because they are crucial for understanding previous literature. On the other hand, we have not included older techniques that are now known to provide data that are not reliable (e.g., RAPDs).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank again everyone acknowledged in the Preface to the previous edition of this book. FWA thanks the Hatfield Marine Science Center and the Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology for hosting his extended visits to work on this edition. Chapter 18 is based partially on work supported by the US National Science Foundation, Grant DEB 074218 to FWA and GL. In addition, we give special thanks to the Minitab Corporation for providing software through their Author Assistance Program, Paul Sunnucks for his many helpful comments on the previous edition, Nils Ryman for help with the Appendix, and Ian Jamieson for help with Table 13.1. In addition, we thank the many colleagues who have helped us by providing comments, information, unpublished data, and answers to questions associated with this edition: Steve Amish, Peter Beerli, Kurt Benirschke, Des Cooper, Rob Cowie, Kirsten Dale, Pam Diggle, Suzanne Edmands, Zac Forsman, Ned Friedman, Oscar Gaggiotti Roxanne Haverkort, Paul Hohenlohe, Marty Kardos, Meng-Hua Li, Ian MacLachlan, Sierra McLane, Juha Merilä, Gordon Orians, Barb Taylor, Mark Tanaka, Dave Towns, C. Susannah Tysor, and Sam Yeaman.

DEDICATION

We dedicate this book to James F. Crow, who died just before his 96th birthday as we were putting the finishing touches on this book. Jim was a great scientist and wonderful human being whose contributions were enormous. We were honored that he agreed to write a Guest Box for the Statistical Appendix. Over the years, we always appreciated Jim’s clear and useful reviews of our papers when they were sent to him. FWA got to know Jim in the last few years while his daughter was attending graduate school in Madison. My most vivid memory of talking with Jim in his tiny office was finding Sewall Wright’s National Medal of Science haphazardly placed on a filing cabinet behind the office door.

Fred W. Allendorf

Gordon Luikart

Sally N. Aitken

12 February 2012 

Preface to the First Edition

The many beings are numberless; I vow to save them all.

Traditional Zen vow

The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us.

Edward O. Wilson, 1984

This book is about applying the concepts and tools of genetics to problems in conservation. Our guiding principle in writing has been to provide the conceptual basis for understanding the genetics of biological problems in conservation. We have not attempted to review the extensive and ever growing literature in this area. Rather we have tried to explain the underlying concepts and to provide enough clear examples and key citations for further consideration. We also have strived to provide enough background so that students can read and understand the primary literature.

Our primary intended audience is broadly trained biologists who are interested in understanding the principles of conservation genetics and applying them to a wide range of particular issues in conservation. This includes advanced undergraduate and graduate students in biological sciences or resource management, as well as biologists working in conservation biology for management agencies. The treatment is intermediate and requires a basic understanding of ecology and genetics.

This book is not an argument for the importance of genetics in conservation. Rather, it is designed to provide the reader with the appropriate background to determine how genetic information may be useful in any specific case. The primary current causes of extinction are anthropogenic changes that affect ecological characteristics of populations (habitat loss, fragmentation, introduced species, etc.). However, genetic information and principles can be invaluable in developing conservation plans for species threatened with such effects.

The usefulness of genetic tools and concepts in conservation of biological diversity is continually expanding as new molecular technologies, statistical methods, and computer programs are being developed at an increasing rate. Conservation genetics and molecular ecology are under explosive growth, and this growth is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Indeed we have recently entered the age of genomics. New laboratory and com­putational technologies for generating and analyzing molecular genetic data are emerging at a rapid pace.

There are several excellent texts in population genetics available (e.g., Hedrick 2005, Hartl and Clark 1997, Halliburton 2004). Those texts concentrate on questions related to the central focus of population and evolutionary genetics, which is to understand the processes and mechanisms by which evolutionary changes occur. There is substantial overlap between those texts and this book. However, the theme underlying this book is the application of an understanding of the genetics of natural populations to conservation.

We have endeavored to present a balanced view of theory and data. The first four chapters (Part I) provide an overview of the study of genetic variation in natural populations of plants and animals. The middle eight chapters (Part II) provide the basic principles of population genetics theory with an emphasis on concepts especially relevant for problems in conservation. The final eight chapters (Part III) synthesize these principles and apply them to a variety of topics in conservation.

We emphasize the interpretation and understand­ing of genetic data to answer biological questions in conservation. Discussion questions and problems are included at the end of each chapter to engage the reader in understanding the material. We believe well written problems and questions are an invaluable tool in learning the information presented in the book. These problems feature analysis of real data from populations, conceptual theoretical questions, and the use of computer simulations. A web site contains example datasets and software programs for illustrating population genetic processes and for teaching methods for data analysis.

We have also included a comprehensive glossary. Words included in the glossary are bolded the first time that they are used in the text. Many of the disagreements and long-standing controversies in population and conservation genetics result from people using the same words to mean different things. It is important to define and use words precisely.

We have asked many of our colleagues to write guest boxes that present their own work in conservation genetics. Each chapter contains a guest box that provides further consideration of the topics of that chapter. These boxes provide the reader with a broader voice in conservation genetics, as well as familiarity with recent case study examples, and some of the major contributors to the literature in conservation genetics.

The contents of this book have been influenced by lecture notes and courses in population genetics taken by the senior author from Bob Costantino and Joe Felsenstein. We also thank Fred Utter for his contagious passion to uncover and describe genetic varia­tion in natural populations. This book began as a series of notes for a course in conservation genetics that the senior author began while on sabbatical at the University of Oregon in 1993. About one-quarter of the chapters were completed within those first six months. However, as the demands of other obligations took over, progress slowed to a near standstill. The majority of this book has been written by the authors in close collaboration over the last two years.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to the students in the Conservation Genetics course at the University of Montana over many years who have made writing this book enjoyable by their enthusiasm and comments. Earlier versions of this text were used in courses at the University of Oregon in 1993 and at the University of Minnesota in 1997; we are also grateful to those students for their encouragement and comments. We also gratefully acknowledge the University of Montana and Victoria University of Wellington for their support. Much appreciated support was also provided by Pierre Taberlet and the CNRS Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine. This book could not have been completed without the loving support of our wives Michel and Shannon.

We thank the many people from Blackwell Publishing for their encouragement, support, and help throug­hout the process of completing this book. We are grateful to the authors of the Guest Boxes who quickly replied to our many inquiries. We are indebted to Sally Aitken for her extremely thorough and helpful review of the entire book, John Powell for his excellent help with the glossary, and to Kea Allendorf for her help with the literature cited. We also thank many colleagues who have helped us by providing comments, information, unpublished data, and answers to questions: Teri Allendorf, Agostinho Antunes, Jon Ballou, Mark Beaumont, Albano Beja-Pereira, Steve Beissinger, Pierre Berthier, Giorgio Bertorelle, Matt Boyer, Brian Bowen, Ron Burton, Chris Cole, Kirsten Dale, Charlie Daugherty, Sandie Degnan, Dawson Dunning, Norm Ellstrand, Dick Frankham, Chris Funk, Oscar Gaggiotti, Neil Gemmell, John Gilliespie, Mary Jo Godt, Dave Goulson, Ed Guerrant, Bengt Hansson, Sue Haig, Kim Hastings, Phil Hedrick, Kelly Hildner, Rod Hitchmough, Denver Holt, Jeff Hutchings, Mike Ivie, Mike Johnson, Carrie Kappel, Joshua Kohn, Peter Lesica, Laura Lundquist, Shujin Luo, Lisa Meffert, Don Merton, Scott Mills, Andy Overall, Jim Patton, Rod Peakall, Robert Pitman, Kristina Ramstad, Reg Reisenbichler, Bruce Rieman, Pete Ritchie, Bruce Rittenhouse, Buce Robertson, Rob Robichaux, Nils Ryman, Mike Schwartz, Jim Seeb, Brad Shaffer, Pedro Silva, Paul Spruell, Paul Sunnucks, David Tallmon, Kathy Traylor-Holzer, Randal Voss, Hartmut Walter, Robin Waples, and Andrew Whiteley.

Fred W. Allendorf

Gordon Luikart

August 2005 

List of Symbols

This list includes mathematical symbols with definitions, and references to the primary chapters in which they are used. There is some duplication of usage which reflects the general usage in the literature. However, the specific meaning should be apparent from the context and chapter.

PART I

INTRODUCTION

c01uf001

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

One-horned rhinoceros, Section 5.3

c01uf002

We are at a critical juncture for the conservation and study of biological diversity: such an opportunity will never occur again. Understanding and maintaining that diversity is the key to humanity’s continued prosperous and stable existence on Earth.

US National Science Board Committee on Global Biodiversity (1989)

The extinction of species, each one a pilgrim of four billion years of evolution, is an irreversible loss. The ending of the lines of so many creatures with whom we have traveled this far is an occasion of profound sorrow and grief. Death can be accepted and to some degree transformed. But the loss of lineages and all their future young is not something to accept. It must be rigorously and intelligently resisted.

Gary Snyder (1990)

Chapter Contents

1.1 Genetics and civilization

1.2 What should we conserve?

1.3 How should we conserve biodiversity?

1.4 Applications of genetics to conservation

1.5 The future

Guest Box 1 The role of genetics in conservation

We are living in a time of unprecedented extinctions (Myers and Knoll 2001, Stuart et al. 2010, Barnosky et al. 2011). Current extinction rates have been estimated to be 50–500 times background rates and are increasing; an estimated 3000–30,000 species go extinct annually (Woodruff 2001). Projected extinction rates vary from 5–25% of the world’s species by 2015 or 2020. Approximately 23% of mammals, 12% of birds, 42% of turtles and tortoises, 32% of amphibians, 34% of fish, and 9–34% of major plant taxa are threatened with extinction over the next few decades (IUCN 2001, Baillie et al. 2004). Over 50% of animal species are considered to be critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable to extinction (Baillie et al. 2004). A recent assessment of the status of the world’s vertebrates, based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, concluded that approximately 20% are classified as Threatened. This figure is increasing primarily because of agricultural expansion, logging, overexploitation, and invasive introduced species (Hoffmann et al. 2010).

The true picture is much worse than this because the conservation status of most of the world’s species remains poorly known. Recent estimates indicate that less than 30% of the world’s arthropod species have been described (Hamilton et al. 2010). Less than 5% of the world’s described animal species have been evaluated for the IUCN Red List. Few invertebrate groups have been evaluated, and the evaluations that have been done have tended to focus on molluscs and crustaceans. Among the insects, only the swallowtail butterflies, dragonflies, and damselflies have received much attention.

Conservation biology poses perhaps the most difficult and important questions ever faced by science (Pimm et al. 2001). The problems are difficult because they are so complex and cannot be approached by the reductionist methods that have worked so well in other areas of science. Moreover, solutions to these problems require a major readjustment of our social and political systems. There are no more important scientific challenges because these problems threaten the continued existence of our species and the future of the biosphere itself.

1.1 GENETICS AND CIVILIZATION

Genetics has a long history of application to human concerns. The domestication of animals and cultivation of plants is thought to have been perhaps the key step in the development of civilization (Diamond 1997). Early peoples directed genetic change in domestic and agricultural species to suit their needs. It has been estimated that the dog was domesticated over 15,000 years ago, followed by goats and sheep around 10,000 years ago (Darlington 1969, Zeder and Hess 2000). Wheat and barley were the first crops to be domesticated in the Old World approximately 10,000 years ago; beans, squash, and maize were domesticated in the New World at about the same time (Darlington 1969, Kingsbury 2009).

The initial genetic changes brought about by cultivation and domestication were not due to intentional selection but apparently were inadvertent and inherent in cultivation itself. Genetic change under domestication was later accelerated by thousands of years of purposeful selection as animals and crops were selected to be more productive or to be used for new purposes. This process became formalized in the discipline of agricultural genetics after the rediscovery of Mendel’s principles at the beginning of the 20th century.

The ‘success’ of these efforts can be seen everywhere. Humans have transformed much of the landscape of our planet into croplands and pasture to support the over 7 billion humans alive today. It has been estimated that 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface is now occupied by crops and pasture (Foley et al. 2007), and that 24% of the primary terrestrial productivity is used by humans (Haberl et al. 2007). Recently, however, we have begun to understand the cost at which this success has been achieved. The replacement of wilderness by human-exploited environments is causing the rapidly accelerating loss of species and ecosystems throughout the world. The continued growth of the human population and their direct and indirect effects on environments imperils a large proportion of the wild species that now remain.

Aldo Leopold inspired a generation of biologists to recognize that the actions of humans are embedded into an ecological network that should not be ignored (Meine 1998). The organized actions of humans are controlled by sociopolitical systems that operate into the future on a timescale of a few years at most. All too often our systems of conservation are based on the economic interests of humans in the immediate future. We tend to disregard, and often mistreat, elements that lack economic value but that are essential to the stability of the ecosystems upon which our lives and the future of our children depend.

In 1974, Otto Frankel published a landmark paper entitled ‘Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility’, which set out conservation priorities:

First, … we should get to know much more about the structure and dynamics of natural populations and communities. … Second, even now the geneticist can play a part in injecting genetic considerations into the planning of reserves of any kind. … Finally, reinforcing the grounds for nature conservation with an evolutionary perspective may help to give conservation a permanence which a utilitarian, and even an ecological grounding, fail to provide in men’s minds.

Frankel, an agricultural plant geneticist, came to the same conclusions as Leopold, a wildlife biologist, by a very different path. In Frankel’s view, we cannot anticipate the future world in which humans will live in a century or two. Therefore, it is our responsibility to keep evolutionary options open. It is time to apply our understanding of genetics to conserving the natural ecosystems that are threatened by human civilization.

1.2 WHAT SHOULD WE CONSERVE?

Conservation can be viewed as an attempt to protect the genetic diversity that has been produced by evolution over the previous 3.5 billion years on our planet (Eisner et al. 1995). Genetic diversity is one of three forms of biodiversity recognized by the IUCN as deserving conservation, along with species and ecosystem diversity (www.cbd.int, McNeely et al. 1990). Unfortunately, genetics has been generally ignored by the member countries in their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans developed to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Laikre et al. 2010a).

We can consider the implications of the relationship between genetic diversity and conservation at many levels: genes, individuals, populations, varieties, subspecies, species, genera, and so on. Genetic diversity provides a retrospective view of evolutionary lineages of taxa (phylogenetics), a snapshot of the current genetic structure within and among populations (population and ecological genetics), and a glimpse ahead to the future evolutionary potential of populations and species (evolutionary biology).

1.2.1 Phylogenetic Diversity

The amount of genetic divergence based upon phylogenetic relationships is often considered when setting conservation priorities for different species (Mace et al. 2003, Avise 2008). For example, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) assigns priority for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States on the basis of taxonomic distinctiveness (USFWS 1983). Species of a monotypic genus receive the highest priority. The tuatara raises several important issues about assigning conservation value and allocating our conservation efforts based upon taxonomic distinctiveness (Example 1.1).

Example 1.1 The Tuatara: A Living Fossil

The tuatara is a lizard-like reptile that is the remnant of a taxonomic group that flourished over 200 million years ago during the Triassic Period (Figure 1.1). Tuatara are now confined to some 30 small islands off the coast of New Zealand (Daugherty et al. 1990). Three species of tuatara were recognized in the 19th century. One of these species is now extinct. A second species, Sphenodon guntheri, was ignored by legislation designed to protect the tuatara which ‘lumped’ all extant tuatara into a single species, S. punctatus.

Figure 1.1 Adult male tuatara.

c01f001

Daugherty et al. (1990) reported allozyme and morphological differences from 24 of the 30 islands on which tuatara are thought to remain. These studies support the status of S. guntheri as a distinct species and indicate that fewer than 300 individuals of this species remain on a single island, North Brother Island in Cook Strait. Another population of S. guntheri became extinct earlier in this century. Daugherty et al. (1990) argued that not all tuatara populations are of equal conservation value. As the last remaining population of a distinct species, the tuatara on North Brother Island represent a greater proportion of the genetic diversity remaining in the genus Sphenodon and deserve special recognition and protection. However, recent results with other molecular techniques indicate that the tuatara on North Brother Island probably do not warrant recognition as a distinct species (Hay et al. 2010, Example 16.3).

On a larger taxonomic scale, how should we value the tuatara relative to other species of reptiles? Tuatara species are the last remaining representatives of the Sphenodontida, one of four extant orders of reptiles (tuatara, snakes and lizards, alligators and crocodiles, and tortoises and turtles). In contrast, there are approximately 5000 species in the Squamata, the speciose order that contains lizards and snakes.

One position is that conservation priorities should regard all species as equally valuable. This position would equate the two tuatara species with any two species of reptiles. Another position is that we should take phylogenetic diversity into account in assigning conservation priorities. The extreme phylogenetic position is that we should assign equal conservation value to each major sister group in a phylogeny. According to this position, tuatara would be weighed equally with the over 5000 species of other snakes and lizards. Some intermediate between these two positions seems most reasonable.

Faith (2008) recommends integrating evolutionary processes into conservation decision-making by considering phylogenetic diversity. Faith provides an approach that goes beyond earlier recommendations that species that are taxonomically distinct deserve greater conservation priority. He argues that the phylogenetic diversity approach provides two ways to consider maximizing biodiversity. First, considering phylogeny as a product of evolutionary process enables the interpretation of diversity patterns to maximize biodiversity for future evolutionary change. Second, phylogenetic diversity also provides a way to better infer biodiversity patterns for poorly described taxa when used in conjunction with information about geographic distribution.

Vane-Wright et al. (1991) presented a method for assigning conservation value on the basis of phylogenetic relationships. This system is based upon the information content of the topology of a particular phylogenetic hierarchy. Each extant species is assigned an index of taxonomic distinctness that is inversely proportional to the number branching points to other extant lineages. May (1990) has estimated that the tuatara (Example 1.1) represents between 0.3 and 7% of the taxonomic distinctness, or perhaps we could say genetic information, among reptiles. This is equivalent to saying that each of the two tuatara species is equivalent to approximately 10 to 200 of the ‘average’ reptile species. Crozier and Kusmierski (1994) developed an approach to setting conservation priorities based upon phylogenetic relationships and genetic divergence among taxa. Faith (2002) has presented a method for quantifying biodiversity for the purpose of identifying conservation priorities that considers phylogenetic diversity both between and within species.

There is great appeal to placing conservation emphasis on distinct evolutionary lineages with few living relatives. Living fossils, such as the tuatara, ginkgo (Royer et al. 2003), or the coelacanth (Thompson 1991), represent important pieces in the jigsaw puzzle of evolution. Such species are relics that are representatives of taxonomic groups that once flourished. Study of the primitive morphology, physiology, and behavior of living fossils can be extremely important in understanding evolution. For example, tuatara morphology has hardly changed in nearly 150 million years. Among the many primitive features of the tuatara is a rudimentary third, or pineal, eye on the top of the head.

Tuatara represent an important ancestral outgroup for understanding vertebrate evolution. For example, a recent study has used genomic information from tuatara to reconstruct and understand the evolution of 18 human retroposon elements (Lowe et al. 2010). Most of these elements were quickly inactivated early in the mammalian lineage, and thus study of other mammals provides little insight into these elements in humans. These authors conclude that species with historically low population sizes (such as tuatara) are more likely to maintain ancient mobile elements for long periods of time with little change. Thus, these species are indispensable in understanding the evolutionary origin of functional elements in the human genome.

In contrast, others have argued that our conservation strategies and priorities should be based primarily upon conserving the evolutionary process rather than preserving only those pieces of the evolutionary puzzle that are of interest to humans (Erwin 1991). Those species that will be valued most highly under the schemes that weigh phylogenetic distinctness are those that may be considered evolutionary failures. Evolution occurs by changes within a single evolutionary lineage (anagenesis) and the branching of a single evolutionary lineage into multiple lineages (cladogenesis). Conservation of primitive, nonradiating taxa is not likely to be beneficial to the protection of the evolutionary process and the environmental systems that are likely to generate future evolutionary diversity (Erwin 1991).

Figure 1.2 illustrates the phylogenetic relations among seven hypothetical species (from Erwin 1991). Species A and B are phylogenetically distinct taxa that are endemic to small geographic areas (e.g., tuataras in New Zealand). Such lineages carry information about past evolutionary events, but they are relatively unlikely to be sources of future evolution. In contrast, the stem resulting in species C, D, E, and F is relatively likely to be a source of future anagenesis and cladogenesis. In addition, species such as C, D, E, and F may be widespread, and therefore are not likely to be the object of conservation efforts.

Figure 1.2 Hypothetical phylogeny of seven species.

Redrawn from Erwin (1991).

c01f002

The problem is more complex than just identifying species with high conservation value; we must take a broader view and consider the habitats and environments where our conservation efforts could be concentrated. Conservation emphasis on phylogenetically distinct species will lead to protection of environments that are not likely to contribute to future evolution (e.g., small islands along the coast of New Zealand). In contrast, geographic areas that are the center of evolutionary activity for diverse taxonomic groups could be identified and targeted for long-term protection.

Recovery from our current extinction crisis should be a central concern of conservation (Myers et al. 2000). It is important to maintain the potential for the generation of future biodiversity. We should identify and protect contemporary hotspots of evolutionary radiation and the functional taxonomic group from which tomorrow’s biodiversity is likely to originate. In addition, we should protect those phylogenetically distinct species that are of special value for our understanding of biological diversity and the evolutionary process. These species are also potentially valuable for future evolution of biodiversity because of their combination of unusual phenotypic characteristics that may give rise to a future evolutionary radiation. Isaac et al. (2007) have proposed using an index that combines both evolutionary distinctiveness and IUCN Red List categories to set conservation priorities.

1.2.2 Populations, Species, or Ecosystems?

A related, and sometimes impassioned, dichotomy between protecting centers of biodiversity or phylogenetically distinct species is the dichotomy between emphasis on species conservation or on the conservation of habitat or ecosystems (Soulé and Mills 1992, Armsworth et al. 2007). Conservation efforts to date have emphasized the concerns of individual species. For example, in the US the Endangered Species Act (ESA) has been the legal engine behind much of the conservation efforts. However, it is frustrating to see enormous resources being spent on a few high profile species when little is spent on less charismatic taxa or in preventing environmental deterioration that would benefit many species. It is clear that a more comprehensive and proactive conservation strategy emphasizing protection of habitat and ecosystems, rather than species, is needed. Some have advocated a shift from saving things, the products of evolution (species, communities, or ecosystems), to saving the underlying processes of evolution that underlie a dynamic biodiversity at all levels (Templeton et al. 2001).

It has been argued that more concern about extinction should be focused on the extinction of genetically distinct populations, and less on the extinction of species (Hughes et al. 1997, Hobbs and Mooney 1998). The conservation of many distinct populations is required to maximize evolutionary potential of a species and to minimize the long-term extinction risks of a species. In addition, a population focus would also help to prevent costly and desperate ‘last-minute’ conservation programs that occur when only one or two small populations of a species remain. The first attempt to estimate the rate of population extinction worldwide was published by Hughes et al. (1997). They estimated that tens of millions of local populations that are genetically distinct go extinct each year. Approximately 16 million of the world’s three billion genetically distinct natural populations go extinct each year in tropical forests alone.

Luck et al. (2003) have considered the effect of population diversity on the functioning of ecosystems and so-called ecosystem services. They argue that the relationship between biodiversity and human wellbeing is primarily a function of the diversity of populations within species. They have also proposed a new approach for describing population diversity that considers the value of groups of individuals to the services that they provide.

Ceballos and Ehrlich (2002) have compared the historical and current distributions of 173 declining mammal species from throughout the world. Their data included all of the terrestrial mammals of Australia and subsets of terrestrial mammals from other continents. Nearly 75% of all species they included have lost over 50% of their total geographic range. Approximately 22% of all Australian species are declining, and they estimated that over 10% of all Australian terrestrial mammal populations have been extirpated since the 19th century. These estimates, however, all assume that population extirpation is proportional to loss of range area rather than defining populations using genetic criteria.

The amount of genetic variation within a population may also play an important ecosystem role in the relationships among species in some functional groups and ecosystems. Clark (2010) has found that intraspecific genetic variation within forest trees in the southeastern US allows higher species diversity. Recent results in community genetics suggest that individual alleles within some species can affect community diversity and composition (Crutsinger et al. 2006). For example, alleles at tannin loci in cottonwood trees affect palatability and decay rate of leaves, which in turn influences abundance of soil microbes, fungi, and arboreal insects and birds (Whitham et al. 2008). Genetic variation in the bark characteristics of a foundation species (Tasmanian blue gum tree) has been found to affect the abundance and distribution of insects, birds, and marsupials. Loss or restoration of such alleles to populations could thus influence community diversity and ecosystem function (Whitham et al. 2008).

Conservation requires a balanced approach that is based upon habitat protection which also takes into account the natural history and viability of individual species. Consider Chinook salmon in the Snake River basin of Idaho, which are listed under the ESA. These fish spend their first two years of life in small mountain rivers and streams far from the ocean. They then migrate over 1500 km downstream through the Snake and Columbia Rivers and enter the Pacific Ocean. There they spend two or more years ranging as far north as the coast of Alaska before they return to spawn in their natal freshwater streams. There is no single ecosystem that encompasses these fish, other than the biosphere itself. Protection of this species requires a combination of habitat measures and management actions that take into account the complex life-history of these fish.

1.3 HOW SHOULD WE CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY?

Extinction is a demographic process: the failure of one generation to replace itself with a subsequent generation. Demography is of primary importance in managing populations for conservation (Lacy 1988, Lande 1988). Populations are subject to uncontrollable stochastic demographic factors as they become smaller. It is possible to estimate the expected mean and variance of a population’s time to extinction if one has an understanding of a population’s demography and environment (Goodman 1987, Belovsky 1987, Lande 1988).

There are two main types of threats causing extinction: deterministic and stochastic threats (Caughley 1994). Deterministic threats are habitat destruction, pollution, overexploitation, species translocation, and global climate change. Stochastic threats are random changes in genetic, demographic or environmental factors. Genetic stochasticity is random genetic change (drift) and increased inbreeding (Shaffer 1981). Genetic stochasticity leads to loss of genetic variation (including beneficial alleles) and increase in frequency of harmful alleles. An example of demographic stochasticity is random variation in sex ratios, for example producing only male offspring. Environmental stochasticity is simply random environmental variation, such as the occasional occurrence of several harsh winters in a row. In a sense, the effects of small population size are both deterministic and stochastic. We know that genetic drift in small populations is likely to have harmful effects, and the smaller the population, the greater the probability of such effects. However, the effects of small population size are stochastic because we cannot predict what traits will be affected.

Under some conditions, extinction is likely to be influenced by genetic factors. Small populations are also subject to genetic stochasticity, which can lead to loss of genetic variation through genetic drift. The ‘inbreeding effect of small populations’ (see Box 1.1) is likely to lead to a reduction in the fecundity and viability of individuals in small populations. For example, Frankel and Soulé (1981, p. 68) suggested that a 10% decrease in genetic variation due to the inbreeding effect of small populations is likely to cause a 10–25% reduction in reproductive performance of a population. This in turn is likely to cause a further reduction in population size, and thereby reduce a population’s ability to persist (Gilpin and Soulé 1986). This has come to be known as the extinction vortex (see Figure 14.2).

Box 1.1 What is an ‘Inbred’ Population?

The term ‘inbred population’ is used in the literature to mean two very different things (Chapter 13, Templeton and Read 1994). In the conservation literature, ‘inbred population’ is often used to refer to a small population in which mating between related individuals occurs because after a few generations, all individuals in a small population will be related. Thus, matings between related individuals (inbreeding) will occur in small populations even if they are random mating (panmictic). This has been called the ‘inbreeding effect of small populations’ (see Chapter 6).

Formally in population genetics, an ‘inbred’ population is one in which there is a tendency for related individuals to mate with one another. For example, many extremely large populations of pine trees are inbred because of their spatial structure (see Section 9.2). Nearby trees tend to be related to one another because of limited seed dispersal, and nearby trees also tend to fertilize each other because of wind pollination. Therefore, a population of pine trees with millions of individuals may still be ‘inbred’.

Population genetics is a complex field. The incorrect, ambiguous, or careless use of words can sometimes result in unnecessary confusion. We have made an effort throughout this book to use words precisely and carefully.

Some have argued that genetic concerns can be ignored when projecting the viability of small populations because they are in much greater danger of extinction by purely demographic stochastic effects (Lande 1988, Pimm et al. 1988, Caughley 1994, Frankham 2003, Sarre and Georges 2009). It has been argued that such small populations are not likely to persist long enough to be affected by inbreeding depression, and that efforts to reduce demographic stochasticity will also reduce the loss of genetic variation. The disagreement over whether or not genetics should be considered in demographic predictions of population persistence has been unfortunate and misleading. Extinction is a demographic process that is likely to be influenced by genetic effects under some circumstances. The important issue is to determine under what conditions genetic concerns are likely to influence population persistence (Nunney and Campbell 1993).

Perhaps most importantly, we need to recognize when management recommendations based upon demographic and genetic considerations may be in conflict with each other. For example, small populations face a variety of genetic and demographic effects that threaten their existence. Management plans aim to increase the population size as soon as possible to avoid the problems associated with small populations. However, efforts to maximize growth rate may actually increase the rate of loss of genetic variation by relying on the exceptional reproductive success of a few individuals (see Example 19.1, Caughley 1994).

Ryman and Laikre (1991) considered what they termed supportive breeding in which a portion of wild parents are brought into captivity for reproduction and their offspring are released back into the natural habitat where they mix with wild conspecifics. Programs similar to this are carried out in a number of species to increase population size and thereby temper stochastic demographic effects (e.g., Blanchet et al. 2008). Under some circumstances, supportive breeding may reduce effective population size and cause a drastic reduction in genetic heterozygosity (Ryman 1994).

Genetic information also can provide valuable insight into the demographic structure and history of a population (Escudero et al. 2003). Estimation of the number of unique genotypes can be used to estimate total population size in populations that are difficult to census (Luikart et al. 2010). Many demographic models assume a single random mating population. Examination of the distribution of genetic variation over the distribution of a species can identify what geographic units can be considered separate demographic units. Consider the simple example of a population of trout found within a single small lake for which it would seem appropriate to consider these fish a single demographic unit. However, under some circumstances the trout in a single small lake can actually represent two or more separate reproductive (and demographic) groups with little or no exchange between them (e.g., Ryman et al. 1979).

The issue of population persistence is a multidisciplinary problem that involves many aspects of the biology of the populations involved (Lacy 2000b). A similar statement can be made about most of the issues we are faced with in conservation biology. We can only resolve these problems by an integrated approach that incorporates demography and genetics, as well as other biological considerations that are likely to be critical for a particular problem (e.g., behavior, physiology, interspecific interactions, as well as habitat loss and environmental change).

1.4 APPLICATIONS OF GENETICS TO CONSERVATION

Darwin (1896) was the first to consider the importance of genetics in the persistence of natural populations. He expressed concern that deer in British nature parks may be subject to loss of vigor because of their small population size and isolation. Voipio (1950) presented the first comprehensive consideration of the application of population genetics to the management of natural populations. He was primarily concerned with the effects of genetic drift in game populations that were reduced in size by trapping or hunting and fragmented by habitat loss.

The modern concern for genetics in conservation began around 1970 when Sir Otto Frankel (Frankel 1970) began to raise the alarm about the loss of primitive crop varieties and their replacement by genetically uniform cultivars (see Guest Box 1). It is not surprising that these initial considerations of conservation genetics dealt with species that were used directly as resources by humans. Conserving the genetic resources of wild relatives of agricultural species remains an important area of conservation genetics (Maxted 2003, Hanotte et al. 2010). A surprisingly modern view of the importance and role of genetics in conservation was written by J.C. Greig in 1979. This interesting paper emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of local population units.

The application of genetics to conservation in a more general context did not blossom until around 1980, when three books established the foundation for applying the principles of genetics to conservation of biodiversity (Soulé and Wilcox 1980, Frankel and Soulé 1981, Schonewald-Cox et al. 1983). Today conservation genetics is a well-established discipline, with its own journals (Conservation Genetics and Conservation Genetics Resources) and two textbooks, including this one and Frankham et al. (2010).

Maintenance of biodiversity primarily depends upon the protection of the environment and maintenance of habitat. Nevertheless, genetics has played an important and diverse role in conservation biology in the last few years. Nearly 10% of the articles published in the journal Conservation Biology since its inception in 1988 have genetic or genetics in their title. Probably at least as many other articles deal with largely genetic concerns but do not have the term in their title. Thus, some 15% of the articles published in Conservation Biology have genetics as a major focus.

The subject matter of papers published on conservation genetics is extremely broad. However, most of articles dealing with conservation and genetics fit into one of the five broad categories below:

1 Management and reintroduction of captive populations, and the restoration of biological communities.

2 Description and identification of individuals, genetic population structure, kin relationships, and taxonomic relationships.

3 Detection and prediction of the effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, and isolation.

4 Detection and prediction of the effects of hybridization and introgression.

5 Understanding the relationships between adaptation or fitness and genetic characters of individuals or populations.

These topics are listed in order of increasing complexity and decreasing uniformity of agreement among conservation geneticists. Although the appropriateness of captive breeding in conservation has been controversial (Snyder et al. 1996, Adamski and Witkowski 2007, Fraser 2008), procedures for genetic management of captive populations are well developed with relatively little controversy. However, the relationship between specific genetic