Losing the forest for the tree? On the wisdom of subpopulation management

Abstract

Animal habitats are changing around the world in many ways, presenting challenges to the survival of species. Zoo animal populations are also challenged by small population sizes and limited genetic diversity. Some ex situ populations are managed as subpopulations based on presumed subspecies or geographic locality and related concerns over genetic purity or taxonomic integrity. However, these decisions can accelerate the loss of genetic diversity and increase the likelihood of population extinction. Here I challenge the wisdom of subpopulation management, pointing out significant concerns in the literature with delineation of species, subspecies, and evolutionarily significant units. I also review literature demonstrating the value of gene flow for preserving adaptive potential, the often‐misunderstood role of hybridization in evolution, and the likely overstated concerns about outbreeding depression, and preservation of local adaptations. I argue that the most effective way to manage animal populations for the long term be they in human care, in the wild, or if a captive population is being managed for reintroduction, is to manage for maximum genetic diversity rather than managing subpopulations focusing on taxonomic integrity, genetic purity, or geographic locale because selection in the future, rather than the past, will determine what genotypes and phenotypes are the most fit. Several case studies are presented to challenge the wisdom of subpopulation management and stimulate thinking about the preservation of genomes rather than species, subspecies, or lineages because those units evolved in habitats that are likely very different from those habitats today and in the future.