Seascape genetics, a term coined in 2006, is a fast growing area of population genetics that draws on ecology, oceanography and geography to address challenges in basic understanding of marine connectivity and applications to management. We provide an accessible overview of the latest developments in seascape genetics that merge exciting new ideas from the field of marine population connectivity with statistical and technical advances in population genetics. After summarizing the historical context leading to the emergence of seascape genetics, we detail questions and methodological approaches that are evolving the discipline, highlight applications to conservation and management, and conclude with a summary of the field's transition to seascape ge-nomics. From 100 seascape genetic studies, we assess trends in taxonomic and geographic coverage, sampling and statistical design, and dominant seascape drivers. Notably, temperature, oceanography and geography show equal prevalence of influence on spatial genetic patterns, and tests of over 20 other seascape factors suggest that a variety of forces impact connec-tivity at distinct spatio-temporal scales. A new level of rigor in statistical analysis is critical for disentangling multiple drivers and spurious effects. Coupled with GIS data and genomic scale sequencing methods, this rigor is taking seascape genetics beyond an initial focus on identifying correlations to hypothesis-driven insights into patterns and processes of population An underwater seascape from the top of Steve's Bommie in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Photo by Jonathan B. Puritz OPEN PEN ACCESS CCESS connectivity and adaptation. The latest studies are illuminating differences between demographic, functional and neutral genetic connectivity, and informing applications to marine reserve design, fisheries science and strategies to assess resilience to climate change and other anthropogenic impacts.

No abstract

With anthropogenic impacts rapidly advancing into deeper waters, there is growing interest in establishing deep-sea marine protected areas (MPAs) or reserves. Reserve design depends on estimates of connectivity and scales of dispersal for the taxa of interest. Deep-sea taxa are hypothesized to disperse greater distances than shallowwater taxa, which implies that reserves would need to be larger in size and networks could be more widely spaced; however, this paradigm has not been tested. We compiled population genetic studies of deep-sea fauna and estimated dispersal distances for 51 studies using a method based on isolation-by-distance slopes. Estimates of dispersal distance ranged from 0.24 km to 2028 km with a geometric mean of 33.2 km and differed in relation to taxonomic and life-history factors as well as several study parameters. Dispersal distances were generally greater for fishes than invertebrates with the Mollusca being the least dispersive sampled phylum. Species that are pelagic as adults were more dispersive than those with sessile or sedentary lifestyles. Benthic species from soft-substrate habitats were generally less dispersive than species from hard substrate, demersal or pelagic habitats. As expected, species with pelagic and/or feeding (planktotrophic) larvae were more dispersive than other larval types. Many of these comparisons were confounded by taxonomic or other life-history differences (e.g. fishes being more dispersive than invertebrates) making any simple interpretation difficult. Our results provide the first rough estimate of the range of dispersal distances in the deep sea and allow comparisons to shallow-water assemblages. Overall, dispersal distances were greater for deeper taxa, although the differences were not large (0.3-0.6 orders of magnitude between means), and imbalanced sampling of shallow and deep taxa complicates any simple interpretation. Our analyses suggest the scales of dispersal and connectivity for reserve design in the deep sea might be comparable to or slightly larger than those in shallow water. Deep-sea reserve design will need to consider the enormous variety of taxa, life histories, hydrodynamics, spatial configuration of habitats and patterns of species distributions. The many caveats of our analyses provide a strong impetus for substantial future efforts to assess connectivity of deep-sea species from a variety of habitats, taxonomic groups and depth zones.

ABSTRACT.-Targeted conservation and management programs are crucial for mitigating anthropogenic threats to declining biodiversity. Although evolutionary processes underpin extant patterns of biodiversity, it is uncommon for resource managers to explicitly consider genetic data in conservation prioritization. Genetic information is inherently relevant to management because it describes genetic diversity, population connectedness, and evolutionary history; thereby typifying their behavioral traits, physiological climate tolerance, evolutionary potential, and dispersal ability. Incorporating genetic information into spatial conservation prioritization starts with reconciling the terminology and techniques used in genetics and conservation science. Genetic data vary widely in analyses and their interpretations can be challenging even for experienced geneticists. Therefore, identifying objectives, decision rules, and implementations in decision support tools specifically for management using genetic data is challenging. Here, we outline a framework for eight genetic system characteristics, their measurement, and how they could be incorporated in spatial conservation prioritization for two contrasting objectives: biodiversity preservation vs maintaining ecological function and sustainable use. We illustrate this framework with an example using data from Tridacna crocea (Lamarck, 1819) (boring giant clam) in the Coral Triangle. We find that many reefs highlighted as conservation priorities with genetic data based on genetic subregions, genetic diversity, genetic distinctness, and connectivity are not prioritized using standard practices. Moreover, different characteristics calculated from the same samples resulted in different spatial conservation priorities. Our results highlight that omitting genetic information from conservation decisions may fail to adequately represent processes regulating biodiversity, but that conservation objectives related to the choice of genetic system characteristics require careful consideration.