Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management

Hoban, Sean; Hauffe, Heidi C.; Pérez‐Espona, Sílvia; Arntzen, Jan W.; Bertorelle, Giorgio; Bryja, Josef; Frith, Katie; Gaggiotti, Oscar E.; Galbusera, Peter; Godoy, José A.; Hoelzel, A. Rus; Nichols, Richard A.; Primmer, Craig R.; Russo, Isa‐Rita M.; Segelbacher, Gernot; Siegismund, Hans R.; Sihvonen, Marjatta; Vernesi, Cristiano; Vilà, Carles; Bruford, Michael William

doi:10.1007/s12686-013-9859-y

Cited by 142 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the messages about the importance of general evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity (Hoban et al., 2013; Santamaria & Mendez, 2012; Sgrò et al., 2011; Weeks et al., 2011) and adaptation (Hoffmann & Sgrò, 2011), appear to have reached managers. These general concepts have also received more attention than other concepts within the evolutionary applications literature (Cook & Sgrò, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This supports the view that the level of integration of evolutionary concepts is generally quite poor (Hoban et al., 2013; Mace & Purvis, 2008; Smith et al., 2014). Both managers and scientists were in agreement that the greatest discrepancy between the importance and implementation of concepts occurs for outbreeding depression and evolution (Figures 1 and 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite continued commentary about the long‐term implications of management actions that do not consider evolution (Carroll et al., 2014; Hoffmann & Sgrò, 2011; Smith et al., 2014), the reasons for this gap remain largely speculative. Some of the many reasons proposed by evolutionary biologists to explain the widespread failure to integrate evolution into management practices include poor training of managers in evolutionary biology (e.g., Frankham, 2010) and a lack of support for conservation managers to enable them to change their management practices (e.g., Hoban et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some authors have identified a lack of appropriate decision‐support tools as a barrier to better integration of evolutionary biology into conservation management (Frankham, 2010; Hoban et al., 2013). Specifically, changes to management practice require the development of tools that enable managers to identify the practical changes needed for evolutionarily enlightened management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, recommendations that managers should monitor genetic diversity are increasingly the norm (Cook & Sgrò, 2017), yet practical guidance about how this should be done and how to distinguish between neutral and adaptive diversity is largely lacking (Hoffmann et al., 2015). It has also been suggested that the slow integration of evolutionary biology into conservation practice may stem from a general failure by evolutionary biologists to engage with conservation managers (Hendry et al., 2010; Hoban et al., 2013; Mace & Purvis, 2008). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Cook

Sgrò

2018

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite wide acceptance that conservation could benefit from greater attention to principles and processes from evolutionary biology, little attention has been given to quantifying the degree to which relevant evolutionary concepts are being integrated into management practices. There has also been increasing discussion of the potential reasons for a lack of evolutionarily enlightened management, but no attempts to understand the challenges from the perspective of those making management decisions. In this study, we asked conservation managers and scientists for their views on the importance of a range of key evolutionary concepts, the degree to which these concepts are being integrated into management, and what would need to change to support better integration into management practices. We found that while managers recognize the importance of a wide range of evolutionary concepts for conservation outcomes, they acknowledge these concepts are rarely incorporated into management. Managers and scientists were in strong agreement about the range of barriers that need to be overcome, with a lack of knowledge reported as the most important barrier to better integration of evolutionary biology into conservation decision‐making. Although managers tended to be more focused on the need for more training in evolutionary biology, scientists reported greater engagement between managers and evolutionary biologists as most important to achieve the necessary change. Nevertheless, the challenges appear to be multifaceted, and several are outside the control of managers, suggesting solutions will need to be multidimensional.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Cook

Sgrò

2018

Evolutionary Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Geospatial genetics: Integrating genetics into marine protection and spatial planning

Kershaw

McClintock

Andrews

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The protection of evolutionary processes and maintenance of genetic diversity is necessary for the persistence of biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. The importance of genetic diversity has been reflected in a range of marine policy mechanisms, and the genetic ‘toolbox’ has great potential to support marine protection and marine spatial planning (MSP) at multiple scales. Despite scientific advances in the application of genetics in marine protection and management, systematic integration of genetic information has been generally lacking, primarily due to a knowledge and communication disconnect between geneticists and the marine policy and management community. To meet these outstanding needs, a ‘geospatial genetics’ approach to spatially map species‐specific genetic data and associated information in a way that can be readily integrated by practitioners into marine protection and MSP decisions was developed. Techniques to derive geospatial genetic data layers, which can be viewed and mapped alongside other kinds of spatial data commonly used by conservation practitioners, hold promise for increasing the accessibility of genetic data to support policy decisions more fully. While applicable to many mobile and sessile taxa, an initial focus was placed on marine mammals, and the approach was developed and refined through a series of international meetings and published papers, as well as the development of interactive, expert‐reviewed case studies hosted on the MSP tool SeaSketch. Outcomes of the work to date are currently serving in the policy arena by informing the identification of Important Marine Mammal Areas, an initiative led by the IUCN Marine Mammal Protected Areas Task Force to apply criteria to identify marine mammal habitats across the world's ocean, seas and relevant inland waters through a standardized process. It has become clear that geospatial genetics has great potential to foster increased collaboration among an intersectional community of geneticists, spatial ecologists, and practitioners. This increased opportunity for dialogue and cooperation will help ensure that evolutionary processes are factored into marine protection and MSP processes, and potentially for freshwater and terrestrial systems.

show abstract

Quantitative evaluation of hybridization and the impact on biodiversity conservation

Wyk

Dalton

Hoban

et al. 2016

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic hybridization is an increasing conservation threat worldwide. In South Africa, recent hybridization is threatening numerous ungulate taxa. For example, the genetic integrity of the near‐threatened bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus pygargus) is threatened by hybridization with the more common blesbok (D. p. phillipsi). Identifying nonadmixed parental and admixed individuals is challenging based on the morphological traits alone; however, molecular analyses may allow for accurate detection. Once hybrids are identified, population simulation software may assist in determining the optimal conservation management strategy, although quantitative evaluation of hybrid management is rarely performed. In this study, our objectives were to describe species‐wide and localized rates of hybridization in nearly 3,000 individuals based on 12 microsatellite loci, quantify the accuracy of hybrid assignment software (STRUCTURE and NEWHYBRIDS), and determine an optimal threshold of bontebok ancestry for management purposes. According to multiple methods, we identified 2,051 bontebok, 657 hybrids, and 29 blesbok. More than two‐thirds of locations contained at least some hybrid individuals, with populations varying in the degree of introgression. HYBRIDLAB was used to simulate four generations of coexistence between bontebok and blesbok, and to optimize a threshold of ancestry, where most hybrids will be detected and removed, and the fewest nonadmixed bontebok individuals misclassified as hybrids. Overall, a threshold Q‐value (admixture coefficient) of 0.90 would remove 94% of hybrid animals, while a threshold of 0.95 would remove 98% of hybrid animals but also 8% of nonadmixed bontebok. To this end, a threshold of 0.90 was identified as optimal and has since been implemented in formal policy by a provincial nature conservation agency. Due to widespread hybridization, effective conservation plans should be established and enforced to conserve native populations that are genetically unique.

show abstract

Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management

Cited by 142 publications

References 19 publications

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Geospatial genetics: Integrating genetics into marine protection and spatial planning

Quantitative evaluation of hybridization and the impact on biodiversity conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About