The global loss of biodiversity continues at an alarming rate. Genomic approaches have been suggested as a promising tool for conservation practice, and we discuss how scaling-up to genome-wide inference can benefit traditional conservation genetic approaches and provide qualitatively novel insights. Yet, the generation of genomic data and subsequent analyses and interpretations are still challenging and largely confined to academic research in ecology and 20evolution. This generates a gap between basic research and applicable solutions for conservation managers faced with multifaceted problems. Before the real-world conservation potential of genomic research can be realized, we suggest that current infrastructures need to be modified, methods must mature, analytical pipelines need to be developed, and successful case studies must be disseminated to practitioners. 3 Conservation biology and genomicsLike most of the life sciences, conservation biology is being confronted with the challenge of how to integrate the collection and analysis of large-scale genomic data into its toolbox. Conservation biologists pull from a wide array of disciplines in an effort to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services [1]. Genetic data have helped in this regard by 30 detecting, for example, population substructure, measuring genetic connectivity, and identifying potential risks associated with demographic change and inbreeding [2]. Traditionally, conservation genetics (see Glossary) has relied on a handful of molecular markers ranging from a few allozymes to dozens of microsatellites [3]. But for close to a decade [4], genomics -broadly defined high-throughput sampling of nucleic acids [5] -has been touted as an important advancement to the field, a panacea of sorts for the unresolved conservation problems typically addressed 35 with genetic data [6,7]. This transition has led to much promise, but also hyperbole, where concrete empirical examples of genomic data having a conservation impact remain rare.Under the premise that assisting conservation of the world's biota is its ultimate purpose, the emerging field of conservation genomics must openly and pragmatically discuss its potential contribution towards this goal. While there 40are prominent examples where genetic approaches have made inroads influencing conservation efforts (e.g., Florida panther augmentation [8,9]) and wildlife enforcement (i.e., detecting illegal harvest [10]), it is not immediately clear that the conservation community and society more broadly have embraced genomics as a useful tool for conservation.Maintaining genetic diversity has largely been an afterthought when it comes to national biodiversity policies [11,12], and attempts to identify areas that might prove to be essential for conserving biological diversity rarely mention 45 genomics (e.g. [13,14]). An obvious reason for this disconnect is that many of the pressing conservation issues (e.g., [15,16]) simply do not need genomics, but instead need political will.The traditional use of gene...

No abstract

25Knowledge of genetic diversity among wild populations is becoming increasingly important as more species are 26 recognized for their bioeconomic value. Industrialization of natural resources, such as kelp in the marine 27 shallow sublittoral zone through cultivation and wild-harvesting, may lead to extensive translocation and local 28 population decimation. Without adequate resilience in the form of genetic diversity within and across 29 populations and given the potential introduction of deleterious alleles from translocations, such 30 anthropogenically pressured populations may not be able to sufficiently respond to future climate and other 31 stressors. Here we provide an assessment of the genetic heterogeneity of two bioeconomically important kelp 32 species, Laminaria hyperborea and Saccharina latissima, across the Norwegian coastal region from South 33 (57°N) to North (78°N), by applying microsatellite genotyping. Isolation by distance was found for both kelp 34 species when comparing genetic distance to geographic distance. L. hyperborea clustered into four distinct 35 genetic groups corresponding to distinct geographical ecoregions, whereas S. latissima did not show equally 36 strong geographical structuring but separated into three geographical clusters along the Norwegian coast. No 37 genetic differentiation was found within the Norwegian Skagerrak region, corroborating previous findings. The 38 identified genetic clustering of both kelp species supports the retention of established management regions along 39the Norwegian coast and argues for the continuation of a regional focused management plan for kelp resources. 40 2 Further, the results demonstrate that care should be taken to prevent translocation of kelp between ecoregions in 41 the ongoing industrialization of kelp cultivation, to maintain a healthy coastal ecosystem and sound natural 42 population genetic diversity. 43 44

No abstract