Systematic conservation planning for intraspecific genetic diversity

Abstract

Intraspecific diversity informs the demographic and evolutionary histories of populations, and should be a main conservation target. Although approaches exist for identifying relevant biological conservation units, attempts to identify priority conservation areas for intraspecific diversity are scarce, especially within a multi-specific framework. We used neutral molecular data on six European freshwater fish species (, ,, and) sampled at the riverscape scale (i.e. the Garonne-Dordogne river basin, France) to determine hot- and coldspots of genetic diversity, and to identify priority conservation areas using a systematic conservation planning approach. We demonstrate that systematic conservation planning is efficient for identifying priority areas representing a predefined part of the total genetic diversity of a whole landscape. With the exception of private allelic richness (PA), classical genetic diversity indices (allelic richness, genetic uniqueness) were poor predictors for identifying priority areas. Moreover, we identified weak surrogacies among conservation solutions found for each species, implying that conservation solutions are highly species-specific. Nonetheless, we showed that priority areas identified using intraspecific genetic data from multiple species provide more effective conservation solutions than areas identified for single species or on the basis of traditional taxonomic criteria.

Latitudinal biodiversity gradients at three levels: Linking species richness, population richness and genetic diversity

“…Large quantities of data on intraspecific diversity have recently become available for broad-scale analyses due to technological advances and the accumulation of smaller-scale empirical works (DeWoody & Avise, 2000;Hughes, Daily, & Ehrlich, 1997;Lawrence et al, 2019;Martinez, Willoughby, & Christie, 2018;Medina, Cooke, & Ord, 2018;Miraldo et al, 2016;Willoughby et al, 2015). When collated, such data allow for the extension of species-centric latitudinal concepts towards understanding how broad-scale intraspecific diversity patterns may better inform, for example, the speciation process (Adams & Hadly, 2013;Schluter & Pennell, 2017;Smith, Seeholzer, Harvey, Cuervo, & Brumfield, 2017) and biodiversity conservation by revealing hot/cold spots of intraspecific diversity (Marchesini, Vernesi, Battisti, & Ficetola, 2018;Paz-Vinas et al, 2018). Herein, we focus our discussion specifically on broad-scale patterns of two metrics of intraspecific diversity: population richness within species and genetic diversity, and how these metrics relate to species richness gradients.…”

No consistent effects of humans on animal genetic diversity worldwide

“…Genetic diversity reflects past and current evolutionary bottlenecks and indicates a population's potential for adaptation to future stressors (Hewitt 2000;Reed & Frankham 2003;Frankham 2005;Bijlsma & Loeschcke 2012). As such, understanding the drivers of genetic diversity change worldwide is of great interest to ecologists and conservation biologists (Hughes et al 2008;Pereira et al 2013;Mimura et al 2017;Paz-Vinas et al 2018). Human disturbances, acting as an evolutionary force by modifying rates of extinction and colonisation (Palumbi 2001;Alberti 2015;Thomas 2015;Schlaepfer et al 2018), may be altering the intraspecific genetic diversity of plants and animals around the world-yet no global assessment of temporal trends in genetic diversity has been conducted to date, nor have human impacts on such trends been quantified.…”

Variability of functional traits and their syndromes in a freshwater fish species (Phoxinus phoxinus): The role of adaptive and nonadaptive processes

“…We focused on riverine European minnow populations from the Dordogne–Garonne river basin in southwestern France (Figure ). We selected thirteen sites (coded from A to M) in different rivers to reflect their potential colonization history (Fourtune, Paz‐Vinas, Loot, Prunier, & Blanchet, ; Paz‐Vinas et al, ). Sampled rivers were selected based on previous knowledge in terms of environmental and geographic characteristics of the area (Fourtune et al, ).…”

“…We selected thirteen sites (coded from A to M) in different rivers to reflect their potential colonization history (Fourtune, Paz-Vinas, Loot, Prunier, & Blanchet, 2016;Paz-Vinas et al, 2018). Sampled rivers were selected based on previous knowledge in terms of environmental and geographic characteristics of the area (Fourtune et al, 2016(Fourtune et al, , 2018.…”