Ecological exchangeability versus neutral molecular markers: the case of the great tit

Abstract

Neutral genetic markers, such as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences, are commonly used to discover independently evolving groups of populations in nature. These groups are often considered to be units of conservation because they preserve distinct organismal histories. However, because of the time lag between the isolation of populations and the evolution of diagnostic neutral markers, adaptive traits could be unrepresented by units defined by neutral markers. The concept of ecological exchangeability potentially provides a way to preserve populations possessing local adaptations that lack diagnostic neutral markers. Populations are surveyed for differences in fitness traits, either directly, or by examining morphological or genetic traits that could indirectly serve as proxies for them. The purpose of this paper is to compare the nature of units of conservation defined by neutral gene surveys and ecological exchangeability, using data recently available for the great tit Parus major, a wide-ranging Palearctic species. mtDNA surveys reveal a lack of differentiation across thousands of kilometer. In contrast, studies of body size and clutch size show locally adapted differences between populations separated by a few kilometer, meaning that these populations could be classified as ecologically in exchangeable. These two types of markers have dramatically different consequences for the geographic and evolutionary scale of conservation units. The concept of ecological exchangeability might be an inappropriate way to diagnose units of conservation in birds owing to the time required to document local adaptations and their potential ubiquity. Neutral genetic markers continue to provide a theoretically sound way of identifying units of conservation, and these units ought to be integrated into conservation plans without delay.

DIVERGENCE ACROSS AUSTRALIA'S CARPENTARIAN BARRIER: STATISTICAL PHYLOGEOGRAPHY OF THE RED-BACKED FAIRY WREN (MALURUS MELANOCEPHALUS)

“…Considering that there is a substantial plumage color difference between the two subspecies (Schodde and Mason 1999), the plumage‐based taxonomy might not represent the true demographic history of this species. This discrepancy may result from subjective assessment of the plumage‐color, and may represent another case in birds of conflict between molecular markers and traditional taxonomy (Zink 2007). This discrepancy might be resolved with more quantitative and detailed assessment (e.g., spectrophotometry), or resolved by taking other morphological characters into account.…”

Patterns of ancestry and genetic diversity in reintroduced populations of the slimy sculpin: implications for conservation

“…Others argue that evidence of ecological divergence is sufficient to warrant actions to preserve an intact genetically distinct population (Crandall et al 2000). These issues continue to be actively debated (Zink 2007). Moreover, genetic divergence should be assessed both spatially and temporally to assure that high divergence does not result from rapid genetic drift in small, isolated populations.…”

Common Garden Experiment Reveals Genetic Control of Phenotypic Divergence between Swamp Sparrow Subspecies That Lack Divergence in Neutral Genotypes

“…The definition of evolutionary important subspecific taxa continues to be debated by conservation biologists [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] and is of particular importance to conservation policy [9] , considering, for example, that a third of the bird taxa on the US endangered species list are subspecies. In the past several decades, systematic biology has transitioned from characterizing relationships between taxonomic groups based on phenotypic characters to using molecular genetic markers such as mitochondrial DNA [10] but see [11] . The reliance on molecular genetic markers, assumed to be selectively neutral, is attractive, because biologists can seemingly objectively define taxonomic groups as a group of individuals that share a unique common ancestry of alleles (i.e.…”