Opinion
Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.012Get rights and content

Genomic data have the potential to revolutionize the delineation of conservation units (CUs) by allowing the detection of adaptive genetic variation, which is otherwise difficult for rare, endangered species. In contrast to previous recommendations, we propose that the use of neutral versus adaptive markers should not be viewed as alternatives. Rather, neutral and adaptive markers provide different types of information that should be combined to make optimal management decisions. Genetic patterns at neutral markers reflect the interaction of gene flow and genetic drift that affects genome-wide variation within and among populations. This population genetic structure is what natural selection operates on to cause adaptive divergence. Here, we provide a new framework to integrate data on neutral and adaptive markers to protect biodiversity.

Section snippets

New tools for an old problem: delineating conservation units using genomic data

The rapid increase in the availability of genomic data (see Glossary) is quickly transforming how long-standing questions are addressed and answered in evolution 1, 2, 3, 4, ecology [5], and now conservation 6, 7, 8. Genomics has the potential to revolutionize understanding of adaptive differentiation and the delineation of CUs within species 7, 9. In particular, next-generation sequencing makes it easier to integrate information from neutral and adaptive loci to characterize CUs and adaptive

When should genomics be used to define CUs?

Before using genomic data to define CUs, the first consideration is whether a population genomic approach should be used as opposed to a more standard approach such as a population genetic analysis using microsatellite loci. We argue that genomic data will usually be better than microsatellite data for delineating CUs, as genomic data allow quantification of adaptive variation. Microsatellite data can be used to define ESUs and MUs, but are generally inadequate for characterizing adaptive

Premises of new genomic framework

Based on the above considerations, we developed a new framework for delineating CUs and quantifying adaptive differences among them (Box 3). Our framework is based on two premises. First, different classes of marker should be used for delineating ESUs versus MUs. Second, there may be important adaptive differences among ESUs and MUs that should be tested for and quantified using loci under divergent selection. Below, we describe each of these points in more detail.

The first premise of our new

Future directions

Many outstanding questions need to be answered to learn how best to take advantage of the power of genomic data to delineate CUs and characterize adaptive differentiation among them. Chief among these are: which analyses are most appropriate and effective for testing for adaptive differentiation using outlier loci? How many SNP loci are needed to delineate different CUs accurately and characterize spatial patterns of adaptation? When will incorporating genomic data change delineation of CUs or

Acknowledgments

We thank P. Craze, G. Luikart, J.M. Robertson, D.A. Tallmon, R.S. Waples and three anonymous reviewers for providing helpful suggestions that greatly improved this paper. This research was supported by NSF grants DEB 1046408 and DEB 1146489 to W.C.F., DEB 1022196 to J.K.M., and DEB 0742181 to F.W.A. P.A.H. received support from NIH/NCRR grant P20RR16448 to L. Forney.

References (71)

  • J.K. McKay et al.

    Adaptive population divergence: markers, QTL and traits

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2002)
  • J.K. Pritchard

    The genetics of human adaptation: hard sweeps, soft sweeps, and polygenic adaptation

    Curr. Biol.

    (2010)
  • P.A. Morin

    SNPs in ecology, evolution and conservation

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2004)
  • A.M. Rice

    A guide to the genomics of ecological speciation in natural animal populations

    Ecol. Lett.

    (2011)
  • F.W. Allendorf

    Genomics and the future of conservation genetics

    Nat. Rev. Genet.

    (2010)
  • F.W. Allendorf et al.

    Genetics and the Conservation of Populations

    (2007)
  • D.J. Fraser et al.

    Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units

    Mol. Ecol. 10

    (2001)
  • R.S. Waples

    Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of ‘species’ under the Endangered Species Act

    Mar. Fish. Rev.

    (1991)
  • I.A. Hanski et al.

    Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution

    (1997)
  • R. Holderegger

    Adaptive vs. neutral genetic diversity: implications for landscape genetics

    Landsc. Ecol.

    (2006)
  • A.P.O. de Guia et al.

    The gap between the concept and definitions in the Evolutionarily Significant Unit: the need to integrate neutral genetic variation and adaptive variation

    Ecol. Res.

    (2007)
  • C. Moritz

    Conservation units and translocations: strategies for conserving evolutionary processes

    Hereditas

    (1999)
  • R. Frankham

    Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2011)
  • T.C. Glenn

    Field guide to next-generation DNA sequencers

    Mol. Ecol. Resour.

    (2011)
  • P.A. Hohenlohe

    Next-generation RAD sequencing identifies thousands of SNPs for assessing hybridization between rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout

    Mol. Ecol. Resour.

    (2011)
  • H.C. Rowe

    RAD in the realm of next-generation sequencing technologies

    Mol. Ecol.

    (2011)
  • D. Reznick et al.

    The impact of predation on life-history evolution in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata)

    Evolution

    (1982)
  • P.A. Hohenlohe

    Population genomics of parallel adaptation in threespine stickleback using sequenced RAD tags

    PLoS Genet.

    (2010)
  • W.H. Li

    Maintenance of genetic variability under joint effect of mutation, selection and random drift

    Genetics

    (1978)
  • J.B.S. Haldane

    A mathematical theory of natural and artificial selection. VI. Isolation

    Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.

    (1930)
  • S. Wright

    Evolution in Mendelian populations

    Genetics

    (1931)
  • M. Slatkin

    Gene flow in natural populations

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.

    (1985)
  • E.M. Goss et al.

    Variation in resistance and virulence in the interaction between Arabidopsis thaliana and a bacterial pathogen

    Evolution

    (2006)
  • J.B.M. Sambatti et al.

    Local adaptation, patterns of selection, and gene flow in the Californian serpentine sunflower (Helianthus exilis)

    Evolution

    (2006)
  • G. Luikart

    The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing

    Nat. Rev. Genet.

    (2003)
  • Cited by (696)

    • Where to now with the evolutionarily significant unit?

      2023, Trends in Ecology and Evolution
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text