Large-scale assessment of genetic diversity and population connectivity of Amazonian jaguars (Panthera onca) provides a baseline for their conservation and monitoring in fragmented landscapes

Jaguars from the Brazilian Pantanal: Low genetic structure, male-biased dispersal, and implications for long-term conservation

“…In this context, the Cerrado biome surrounds the Pantanal on most of its eastern borders, not only on its southern end (separating it from the Atlantic Forest areas mentioned above) but also northwards. It therefore mediates the remaining connectivity between the still healthy Amazonian jaguar populations (H e = 0.81 - Roques et al, 2016; H e = 0.76 - Lorenzana et al, 2020) and the Pantanal ones studied here (H e = 0.71). The Cerrado has been intensely modified since the 1950s through extensive cattle ranching and agricultural monocultures (e.g.…”

Conservation implications of high gene flow and lack of pronounced spatial genetic structure in elephants supported by contiguous suitable habitat in north‐western India

“…The observed level of genetic diversity is comparable to well‐connected populations inhabiting a large landscape, for example, Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve (~5500 km 2 ), southern India (De et al, 2021; Vidya et al, 2005). However, a recent study by Lorenzana et al (2020) on jaguars ( Panthera onca ) demonstrated moderate genetic diversity in the fragmented (since early 1950s) and declining (since late 1980s) (Beisiegel et al, 2012) Atlantic Forest population despite evidence of strong genetic drift while retaining heterozygosity comparable to the Amazon population having high demographic connectivity. Therefore, the severe anthropogenic pressure across our study area can potentially alter and eventually disconnect these populations over the long term in spite of the current levels of genetic diversity.…”

Connecting research and practice to enhance the evolutionary potential of species under climate change

“…Although their broad‐scale use is likely to be limited due to cost, these costs are rapidly decreasing, and the tools can be applied to many types of questions. Examples of use include determining inbreeding rates when inbreeding depression is suspected (e.g., Townsend et al, 2009), assessing effectiveness of genetic restoration efforts (e.g., Weeks et al, 2017), identifying genetic erosion (e.g., Thompson et al, 2019), detecting hybridization (e.g., Garroway et al, 2010), identifying local adaptations (e.g., Peláez et al, 2020), monitoring of genetic diversity (e.g., Hollingsworth et al, 2020), assessing carnivore population size to avoid wildlife‐related conflicts (e.g., Åkesson et al, 2022), evaluating ecosystem resilience (e.g., Wernberg et al, 2018), or acquiring baseline information about genetic diversity for conservation‐planning purposes (e.g., Lorenzana et al, 2020). Moreover, molecular tools can be combined with spatial data to identify factors that are governing genetic structure and connectivity (i.e., landscape genetics) and help practitioners identify which populations are most critical to maintaining or restoring gene flow across a network or metapopulation (Castillo et al, 2016), although care must be taken to ensure appropriate sampling and analyses (Hoffmann, Miller, & Weeks, 2021).…”