Chapter 1

The History and Scope of Genetics in Conservation

1.1 Evolution and Conservation

Conservation and evolution are inseparable. Conservation is about ensuring that

biological diversity, and the natural processes that sustain it, is protected over short
and long time scales. This effort must acknowledge that we are in a time of rapid and
extensive change to natural systems wrought by the activities of a single species,
Homo sapiens. Evolutionary processes determine the response of a species to
changes in the biotic and physical environment and, thus, population viability under
current and future conditions. It follows that the concepts and tools of evolutionary
biology are essential to the challenge of conservation biology in several ways:
• To understand the natural processes that have shaped and sustain biological
diversity
• To understand how human-driven changes to the environment alter the
direction and rate of evolutionary change, and
• To predict how the products of past evolution will respond to this, to
identify management priorities and strategies and methods for monitoring the
effectiveness of these.

In a seminal paper, Frankel (1974: 54) defined an evolutionary ethic that should
underly efforts to conserve natural populations and systems:
“In this context, genetics has social responsibilities in two directions: first, to
collaborate in planning the biological system of conservation so as to establish
the highest possible evolutionary potential; second, to help in establishing an
evolutionary ethic, as pat of our social ethics, which will make it acceptable
and indeed inevitable for civilized man to regard the continuing existence of
other species as an integral part of his own existence. This demands
continuing evolution.”
Continued evolution cannot occur without attention to maintaining the viability of
populations and the integrity of natural environments. In this context, Frankel’s
sentiments can be reworded as the following general goal for conservation:

To maintain evolutionary processes and the viability of species and functional

landscapes necessary to achieve this.

1
We have written this book to put flesh on this skeletal goal. Specifically, we seek to
explore how an understanding of evolutionary principles, together with the tools and
concepts of modern genetics, can promote effective conservation In this introductory
chapter, we provide a context for the remainder of the book by reviewing briefly the
history of conservation genetics and its current and potential scope and considering
the implications of evolutionary thinking for management of threatened systems.

1.2 Historical foundations of Conservation Genetics

Modern Conservation Biology is notable for encompassing a wide variety of

disciplines in biology and social sciences, drawing from and combining these as
necessary (Soule 1986). The use of genetic theory and methods in conservation has a
long history, although the significance accorded to genetic information and processes
has varied Like many areas of conservation biology, application of conservation
genetics principles in practical management of natural populations has been limited,
partly because of limited resources or information, but also due to perceived low
priority relative to other issues.

Conservation Genetics is primarily founded from experience gained in genetic

manipulation of plants and animals for agriculture, combined with the sciences of
population and quantitative genetics developed from the 1920s (Figure 1.1). Humans
have long valued different breeds and varieties of domesticated species and
manipulated these for production or aesthetic purposes. Examples abound, for
example from domestication and morphological selection among dog breeds (Wayne
1999), domestication of Cassava from wild Manihot esculenta populations in the
southern Amazon several thousand years ago (Olsen & Schaal 1999), development of
hybrid and polyploid cereals in the middle east, and so on. Culminating in the work of
Mendel (1866), plant breeders made a central contribution to elucidating the physical
basis of inheritance in 19th century and continued to do so through much of the 20 th
centuries, and continue to do so (eg. McClintock 1978). .

From the development of the theory of evolution (Darwin 1859, Wallace 1858) and
its reconciliation with mechanisms of inheritance followed the “neoDarwinian
synthesis”, a rapid development of population and quantitative genetics (Fisher 1930,
Wright 1931, Haldane 1932, Falconer 1960) directed in part at increasing the
efficiency of genetic improvement of domesticated species. Another important

2
corollary of these activities was that the gene became recognized as a fundamental
level of biological organization and diversity (see Chapter 8).

Through the following decades, the economic value of genetic variety, or "genetic
resources" was identified and the issue of preserving genetic diversity of domesticates
came to the fore (Frankel & Soule 1981). This was accorded such importance that
international institutions were established to maintain germ plasm from different
varieties of agriculturally significant crop species and, to a lesser extent, domesticated
animals. The impact of human activities on natural reservoirs of genetic diversity
(Brown 1992), including issues arising from newly developed transgenic strains (see
Chapter 12), remains a major concern. With the increased appreciation of the potential
value of genetic variation in natural populations, have come assertions of sovereign
ownership of genetic resources, an issue that was prominent in negotiating the 1992
Convention on Biological Diversity and to which we return in Chapter 8.

From the experience of agricultural genetics and the parallel development of theory
came two important observations. The first was that the capacity of populations to
evolve in response to selection can be limited by lack of genetic diversity (Chapter 9).
The second was that genetic processes in small populations can reduce reproduction
and survival, including resistance to disease (Chapters 9-10). An important step from
there was to acknowledge that human activities affect evolutionary processes in
natural populations as well as domesticates (Berry 1968; Frankel 1971,1974).

Another important contribution to Conservation Genetics was the use of genetics in

wildlife management, particularly for harvested species (Figure 1.1). The development
of allozyme electrophoresis as a robust method for screening genetic variation in
natural populations allowed managers to identify discrete stocks and investigate the
effects of harvesting, captive propagation and translocations on the genetic
composition of these (e.g., Ryman et al. 1981; Ryman and Utter 1987). Analyses of
phenotypic variation in heavily harvested species also lead to the realization that
human activities constituted a powerful evolutionary force that was affecting the gene
pool of the targeted species (see Chapter 12). The analysis of the genetic basis of
more complex phenotypic traits, including those of immediate relevance to survival
and reproduction, was developed for agricultural applications and is increasingly being
applied in evolutionary biology (Lynch and Walsh 1999). Despite the obvious
relevance of such traits to management of populations, the use of quantitative genetics
methods to analyze or monitor genetic diversity in threatened or managed populations
has been limited compared to molecular approaches. However both the concepts and

3
tools of quantitative genetics are increasingly relevant and accessible (Lynch 1996;
Frankham 1999a), particularly for monitoring fitness-related traits (Chapter 3).

Both agricultural genetics and wildlife management, combined with studies of genetic
(allozyme) and phenotypic variation in natural populations, therefore contributed to
the focus on conserving genetic diversity as a primary goal of conservation genetics.
But the allozyme analyses were also a fore-runner of the use of genetic markers to
investigate population processes, such as paternity, mating system, population
structure and gene flow, in threatened species subject to management. This field of
"Molecular Ecology" developed rapidly in the 1990s as direct methods for detection
and statistical analysis of variation in DNA were refined (Hillis et al. 1996; Goldstein
and Schlotterer 1999; Nei and Kumar 2000, and see Chapter 2). Contributions of
Molecular Ecology to practical conservation are now diverse and have broadened both
the scope and relevance of Conservation Genetics. The refinements of methods for
DNA analysis have also contributed to estimations of relationships among
populations and species and approximate times of divergence among these;
information that is finding increasing use in prioritizing taxa or areas for conservation
effort (see Chapter 8).

The assessment of genetic diversity is also central to the contributions from

systematics theory and practice to conservation genetics. Phylogenies represent
estimates of deep genealogy that, under certain assumptions (see Chapter 8;
Humphries et al. 1995), can act as a surrogate for overall feature diversity (Faith
1992). Thus, several methods have been proposed for prioritizing combinations of
taxa or areas according to the phylogenetic breadth that they represent (Vane-Wright
et al. 1991; Crozier 1997), though debate continues on the extent to which extinction
reduces phylogenetic diversity (Nee and May 1999; Purvis et al. 2000; Hward and
Mooers 2000). Phylogenies, especially those based on molecular characters (as a
surrogate for time), can be used to examine the long-term tempo and geographic
context of speciation and extinction (Barrowclough and Nee 2001; Nee 2001), which
is of some relevance to current conservation (Moritz 1995; Harvey 2000).
Phylogenies also form the basis of comparative approaches to assessing ecological
correlates of extinction risk (Owens and Bennett 2000). Systematics also contributes
more fundamentally through establishing formal taxonomy and, along with
evolutionary theory, shaping views on one of the most vexing questions of all – what
is a species? (Endler 1987; Cracraft 1998; DeQuiroz 1999; Hey 2001; see also
Chapter 8).

4
Scope of Conservation Genetics

Conservation actions and the research necessary to support these should be targeted
at multiple levels, including landscapes, ecosystems species and populations (Noss
1990). Conservation genetics focuses naturally at the population and species levels of
organization, although applications to area/habitat-based management are becoming
more prominent (Figure 1.1; Box 1.1). This focus makes sense in that species and
populations are fundamental units in both ecology and evolution, making their
management an essential contribution to conservation, but does not deny the fact that
management of both habitats and populations is necessary to achieve a positive
conservation outcome.

In the same sense, genetic and ecological approaches to population management

should be seen as complementary and inextricably linked (Soule and Mills 1992;
Hedrick et al. 1996; Box 1.1). On one hand, demographic variables such as sex ratio
and variance in reproductive success are key determinants of rates of genetic
processes within populations (see Chapter 5). On the other, genetic processes, e.g.,
inbreeding or genetic drift, often have substantial effects on key demographic variables
such as fecundity and survivorship (see Chapters 9 and 10) and alone or through
synergistic interactions with other stochastic processes can affect short-term
population viability (Figure 1.2; Mills and Smouse 1994). It is also conceivable that
genetically impoverished or inbred populations are more susceptible to some agents of
decline, including disease and physical stress (Chapter 9)

The ecologist G. E. Hutchinson referred to ecological processes as "a series of

ecological plays in an evolutionary theatre". This metaphor was developed for
conservation biology by Meffe and Carroll (1994) who pointed out that we should be
concerned about both the integrity of ecological systems as well as maintaining the
capacity for evolution. The same applies to conservation genetics. Our goal is to use
genetic tools and concepts, together with ecological approaches, to retain genetic and
demographic processes in the short term and evolutionary processes in the long term.
In practice, it is rare that management priorities based on genetic diversity conflict
directly with those identified with ecological or demographic issues in mind. More
often, there may just be a change in emphasis or, perhaps a broader justification for
management strategies, particularly when planning for longer-term viability of
populations and systems. (Table 1.1; Box 1.1).

5
The linkage between genetic and ecological approaches to management of populations
is illustrated nicely by recent observations on recovery of the greater prairie chicken
(Tympanuchus cupido pinnatus) in south-eastern Illinois (Figure 1.3; Westemeier et al.
1998). Declines in population size and productivity were observed over 35 years due
to loss and fragmentation of habitats. Ecological management to restore the quality of
critical grassland habitats led to a transient recovery in the early 1970s, but egg hatch
rates and population size continued to decline until the loss of genetic diversity due to
small population size and isolation was reversed by augmentation from large
populations in the 1990s. In this case, both ecological and genetic issues needed to be
addressed to achieve population recovery. Similarly, recent successes in management
of the imperiled florida panther (Felis concolor) have required attention to both
habitat protection and amelioration of inbreeding depression (see Chapter 11).

These and other examples reviewed in the following chapters reinforce our view that
conservation genetics should not be seen as a distraction from the important issues in
management, or even as something relevant only to the death rattle of small
populations (Lande 1988; Caughley 1994; Caro and Laurenson 1994) but, rather, as a
set of concepts and tools that should be brought to bear if and when appropriate. A
major purpose of this book is to provide managers and practitioners with the
background to decide when this is so.

The supposed separation of genetics and ecology in conservation also ignores the
contribution that molecular genetic techniques can make to assessing the demography
of threatened populations. The increasing use of the concepts and tools of Molecular
Ecology in the study and management of endangered species (see below) have
broadened the scope of Conservation Genetics such that the distinction between
genetics and ecology is illusory. We therefore agree with Soule and Mills (1992) that,
rather than wasting time and effort arguing about whether genetics is more important
than ecology, we should get on with the job of conserving and restoring populations
and habitats, using tools and concepts from genetics where appropriate.

From the above, it should be clear that we regard Conservation Genetics as having two
major and complementary foci - the traditional domain of conserving genetic diversity,
and the more recent development and application of Molecular Ecology (Moritz
1994a). The first area; “Genetic Conservation” has, as its central concerns:
1. Description of the amount and distribution of genetic diversity within
species and evolutionary diversity among species;

6
 2. Retention of variation within and among populations in order to maintain
current fitness and long-term evolutionary potential; and
3. Avoidance of increases in inbreeding levels, especially in normally outbred
species.
4. Development of methods to monitor effectiveness of management in
relation to 1-3 above

The rationale for these activities was described by Franklin (1980) and Frankel and
Soule (1981) and the pertinent evidence is reviewed in Chapters 8 to 10. Of particular
importance is the development of efficient methods for monitoring genetic diversity
and processes – without this, the need for, and effectiveness of management cannot be
assessed. Yet, monitoring has been a weak link in the science of conservation genetics.
In relation to genetic diversity, there has been justifiable criticism of the focus on
“neutral” molecular variation when it is variation at the genes that underlie fitness that
is crucial (Hedrick 1996; Lynch 1996; see Chapter 3). Throughout this book we will
seek to identify ways in which relevant genetic diversity can be monitored via either
direct measures, sometimes derived from new approaches in quantitative genetics or
genomics, or surrogates. Monitoring of population parameters relevant to genetic
processes, especially population size, migration, individual fitness and mate choice,
benefits directly from the development of Molecular Ecology (Chapters 4-7).

The second focus of Conservation Genetics, "Molecular Ecology" combines the

tools of molecular genetics with theory from population genetics to make inferences
about individuals and populations (Hoelzal & Dover 1991; Avise 1994). The
techniques and applications are diverse and typically are best applied in conjunction
with detailed studies of population ecology (see chapters 4-7 for details). In many
cases, the parameters estimated by genetic methods are prohibitively difficult to
obtain using ecological methods alone. In others, the genetic approach provides a
unique long-term perspective against which current population trends can be
compared.

In the context of conservation and management, some of the more prominent

applications of Molecular Ecology are:
1. Remote identification of individuals in species that are difficult to capture;
2. Analysis of parentage and related variables (e.g., variance of reproductive
success) in closely managed populations; Estimation of short and long-term
effective population size as an indicator of genetic processes within
populations;

7
 3. Identification of reproductively discrete populations (= Management Units,
Moritz 1994b) or, for continuously distributed populations, the geographic
scale over which exchange of individuals is trivial;
4. Estimation of rates of gene flow and detection of changes in migration patterns
or metapopulation structure in modified landscapes; and
5. Detection of hybridization, e.g., between introduced species and remnant
populations.
As discussed in Chapters 4-7, several of these applications (notably 3-5) often rest on
assumptions that may not be satisfied for fluctuating populations, as is the case for
most threatened species, so that the inferences from genetics are best compared to
those from ecology.

In some respects the distinction between these two domains of Conservation Genetics
is blurred. For example, the molecular ecology approach may be used to estimate the
incidence of inbreeding or migration, both processes central to maintaining genetic
diversity. Conversely, changes in levels of inbreeding, essentially a genetic process,
may well affect the demographic parameters being estimated.

Nonetheless, we feel that the distinction is a useful one as the conservation goals and
time-scales of concern are distinct, and in some respects, so are the techniques and
sampling design (Moritz 1994a). Conservation of genetic diversity is primarily a
long-term concern, although in some cases increased inbreeding or loss of genetic
diversity may have an impact on short-term population viability. By contrast, the
Molecular Ecology applications tend to be more focused on immediate ecological and
demographic issues that are likely to be considered important whether or not the
genetic and evolutionary issues are acknowledged.

An evolutionary perspective on conservation

It is an inescapable fact that the human species has caused long running and profound
modifications to species diversity, the landscape, and environmental conditions
(Figure 1.4) and may have done so for a long time (P.S. Martin 1973; Roberts et al.
2001). What is only now becoming appreciate is the extent to which human activities
may be redirecting evolution (Myers and Knoll 2001). While the details are
speculative (Figure 1.5), it is clear that evolution has not stopped; rather its rate and
trajectory has been modified. Of particular concern are predictions that speciation of
large vertebrates has ceased, that commensal species will dominate future radiations,

8
and that a drop in net speciation rate (speciation minus extinction) combined with
reduced immigration means that already alarming predictions of species loss are
underestimates (Rosenzweig 2001). In this context, Frankel’s (1974) urging that we
recognize and act on our responsibility as stewards of the evolutionary process
becomes all the more relevant and urgent. This means coming to terms with
conservation in a changing world (Balmford et al. 1998) and giving more attention to
processes.

Given that humans are part of the environment and exercise profound influence on
that environment, there is a fundamental decision that must be made in conservation
efforts. This is whether we should either:

A) try to retain all taxa and phenotypic variants and restore ecosystems to
unmodified conditions; or

B) accept that landscapes and broader environmental conditions are grossly

modified and seek to maximize biological diversity within ecologically
rehabilitated systems.

We feel that the latter, sometimes referred to as “countryside biogeography” (Daily et

al. 2001) or “reconciliation ecology” (Rosenzweig 2001) is the only course that will
permit the maintenance of ecological and evolutionary processes. We must
acknowledge that humans have affected these processes and will continue to do so.
To seek to return to an unmodified environment is not only unrealistic, but also
represents a static view of biological diversity. What we can seek to do is maximize
the extent to which natural evolutionary processes are retained.

The distinction between conserving ecological and evolutionary processes versus

preserving the products, at the extreme the complete current array of distinct species
and phenotypes, is an important one. As biologists we stand in awe of the products
of evolution and lament the loss of any one. But, from an evolutionary perspective,
we recognize that specific phenotypes and even species are ephemeral, one form
replacing another as evolution proceeds. The challenge we face is not to retain all
distinct populations, but rather to maintain sufficient diversity at the gene, species,
and ecosystem levels to ensure that the underlying ecological and evolutionary
processes continue.

9
This shift of emphasis from the products of evolution to the processes that sustain
diversity has direct implications for planning and management. At the level of broad
scale planning for biodiversity conservation (Chapter 8), landscape elements thought
to be significant for diversification and evolutionary or ecological processes need to be
included in algorithms for prioritizing areas (Moritz 2001; Cowling & Pressey 2001).
When prioritizing species or populations for protection or management, consideration
needs to be given to their level of phylogenetic distinctiveness (Vane-Wright et al.
1991) and whether the variation that they represent is likely to be recoverable through
evolution (Chapter 8). For management of threatened species, an evolutionary
approach can expand options, for example, in relation to augmentation or
translocations of populations (Moritz 1999; Chapter 11).

Conservation genetics: an evolving science

Like most of conservation biology, Conservation Genetics is a young science still

finding its way as established theory is put into practice and new tools and concepts
arise. One of the exciting challenges is that applying theory and principles derived
from laboratory studies and domesticated species to natural populations is revealing
new insights and forcing the development of new theory. Examples of this include the
dependency of effects of inbreeding and outbreeding depression on the condition of
the environment (Chapters 10 and 11) and the development of methods to detect
population bottlenecks and of non-equilibrium approaches to estimating population
parameters from molecular data (Chapters 4-7). There are many others throughout
this book.

Conservation genetics therefore encompasses fundamental as well as applied research.

Indeed, as is usually the case, the distinction between fundamental and applied
research is false. There should be, and is, a continuing process of adapting existing
theory to natural populations and environments and this requires use of model
systems and further laboratory studies (Frankham 1999), as well as experiments in
the field.

An important part of the nexus between the refinement and application of

conservation genetics is the use of "management experiments". Rather than the
genetics being conducted in remote laboratories with the results being "presented" to
the conservation managers, there is much to be gained from direct involvement by
geneticists in ongoing management and, conversely, by involvement of the managers in

10
the genetic research and monitoring (Sherwin & Moritz 2000). This ensures that the
genetics is integrated into parallel ecological studies and that genotype or environment
specific effects of genetic processes are appropriately measured. It also helps to
establish mutual understanding between conservation managers and geneticists,
allowing the former to appreciate the strengths and limitations of genetics and, the
latter, the practical issues that need to be addressed (Moritz et al. 1994).

This book is intended to contribute to the defining of Conservation Genetics as a

discipline and enhancing its relevance to practical management of populations, species
and habitats. The success or otherwise of the book should be judged by the extent to
which it informs the day to day thinking of a conservation manager or stimulates both
fundamental and applied research by present and future students. Towards this end,
we review current theory, experimental evidence and examples of the application of
genetics to practical conservation. This identifies areas of current strength and
limitation, key research questions, and ways of approaching them. We first introduce
the analytical and experimental tools (Chapters 2 - 3), then consider the theory and its
applications in the areas of molecular ecology (Chapters 4 - 7) and conservation of
genetic diversity (Chapters 8 - 12). The concluding chapter (Chapter 13) provides a
guide to managers on how to link the theory and tools of conservation genetics to
specific problems in conservation and reviews future prospects and directions for
Conservation Genetics.

Summary

1. Conservation Genetics was born of concern about erosion of genetic resources

and the impact of humans on the evolutionary process. It has been
strengthened by the use of molecular biology techniques to describe biological
diversity and to provide insights into evolutionary and ecological processes.

2. The central concern of conservation biology is to maximize biological diversity

in the short and long term. This requires that we maintain and, as far as
possible, restore ecological and evolutionary processes.

3. Conservation Genetics contributes to this goal through two, non-exclusive

areas of activity: (i) conservation of genetic and evolutionary diversity, and (ii)
molecular ecology, the use of molecular techniques to investigate ecological
processes. In practice, Conservation Genetics is most powerful when it

11
 complements, rather than replaces, traditional approaches in systematics and
ecology, and is fully integrated into recovery planning.

4. Conservation strategies and management need to recognize the extent to which

humans have modified the evolutionary process and our responsibility as
stewards of evolution. Our approach to conservation of habitats and
populations should therefore be informed by an understanding of historical
and current processes that sustain biological diversity..

5. Conservation Genetics is at an exciting stage of its development as principles

derived from theory and laboratory studies are applied to natural systems.
Further theoretical and experimental studies, the latter using both model
systems and "management experiments" conducted as part of recovery
actions, are needed for Conservation Genetics to become a more predictive
science with practical benefits.

12
Tables and figures

Figure 1.1 Schematic history of Conservation Genetics – contributing disciplines

Figure 1.2 – Extinction vortex – interaction of genetic and demographic processes

(from Gilpin & Soule)

Figure 1.3 prairie chickens – complementary habitat and genetic management –

modified from Westemeier et al. 1998

Figure 1.4 - a) rates of physical changes - temp or atmospheric CO2; b) rates of biotic
change – introductions of fish to USA nico & Fuller 1999; c) global biodiversity
hotspots Myers et al. 2000, Cincotta et al.; d) projections – Sala et al. 2000

Figure 1.5 – changes in evolutionary processes – from Myers & Knoll 2001

13
Table 1.1. Ten intersecting questions from ecologists and geneticists compared

Ecologists
Local issues:
• Is the population increasing or decreasing?
• If decreasing, what cause(s) can be identified and what aspect of the life cycle has
the strongest effect on changes in population size?
• Does the species depend on specific habitat types or interactions with other
species that have been disrupted by human activities?
• What management activities have the best chance of restoring population
viability?

Regional issues:
• Has connectivity among populations been reduced such that metapopulation
viability is threatened?
• What proportion of the species range is threatened to otherwise impacted by
human activities?

Geneticists
Local issues:
• Has the population sufficient genetic diversity to respond to selection?
• Is there evidence for inbreeding depression?
• Has there been a recent decrease in genetic diversity or increase in inbreeding
attributable to human activity?
• Is the population accumulating disadvantageous mutations because of reduced
population size or increased isolation?
• Has the genetic makeup of the population been changed by hybridization with
introduced species or populations?
Regional issues:
• Has gene flow among populations been changed (typically, decreased) by human
activities?
• Have genetically divergent populations been lost across the species’ range?

14
Box 1.1 Comparison of parameters relating to process and pattern and of concern to
managers, ecologists and geneticists

Level Manager Ecologist Geneticist

Ecosystem
• processes Extent/frequency of Fire Energy & nutrient Coevolution of
& weeds; erosion, water cycling; vegetation interacting species
quality succession
• pattern Number/status of Alpha, beta, gamma Retention of
vegetation types diversity of historically isolated
species; habitat communities
configuration
Species
• processes Species viability within Demography: lxmx Gene flow and
jurisdiction etc; PVA population structure
• pattern Changes in numbers of Population trends; Phylogenetic
EVRs; population area occupied diversity
trends
Genes
• process Population size & Mate choice and Rate of genetic
inbreeding availability, change and
adaptability inbreeding
• pattern Heterozygosity? Physiological Heritability,
tolerances, heterozygosity,
morphological and genetic diversity
life history traits among populations

15
Figure 1.1 Schematic history of Conservation Genetics- contributing disciplines

Agricultural Genetics Wildlife Management Evolutionary Genetics

(Neodarwinian

Qualitative Genetics Harvesting and Evolutionary processes

Response to Selection Translocations in natural populations
Genetic Resources
GMOs

Gene Conservation Molecular Ecology

• Genetic Diverstiy • Population size
• Fitness • Mating systems
• Evolvabiliy • Dispersal and
population structure

Phylogenetics Candidate genes

Diversity Molecular markers and
Species concepts Methods

Systematics Molecular Genetics

and Genomics

16
Figure 1.2 Extinction vortex- interaction of genetic and demographic processes (from
Gilpin and Soule 1986)

17
Figure 1.3 Complimentary habitat and genetic management in prairie chickens (from
Westemeier et al. 1998)

18
Figure 1.5 Possible changes to the direction and rate of evolution wrought by human
impacts of the environment. Drawn from Myers and Knoll (2001) and Woodruff
(2001).

The mass extinction: Increased extinction rate with loss of 1/3 to 2/3 of
extant species (Wilson 2000) and even greater impact on distinct
populations (Hughes et al. 1997)

The homogocene; movement, mixing and homogenization of regional

biotas

Habitat loss: major reduction in available habitats in key biomes;

wetlands, tropical forests, coral reefs

Fragmentation of species’ Increased hybridization

ranges
Spread of commensal species
Reduced habitat diversity
Changed selection regimes
Loss of endemic species and
distinct populations Simplified ecological
interactions
Reduced genetic diversity, gene
flow

Dominance and diversification of commensal species => “pest

and weed” ecology

End of speciation for large vertebrates

Loss of phylogenetic diversity

Community simplification and shortening of food webs

Depletion of evolutionary capacity in tropical biomes

19