4.8 Article

The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2104642118

Keywords

genomics; extinction; population dynamics

Funding

  1. NSF [DEB 1413925, DEB 1754821, DEB 1838282, DEB 2016569]
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the NIH [RL5GM118990]
  3. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee College of Letters and Science

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conserving genome-wide genetic variation is generally the best approach to prevent inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive potential, while focusing on functional genetic variation is not always feasible and can often lead to misleading and counterproductive outcomes.
The unprecedented rate of extinction calls for efficient use of genetics to help conserve biodiversity. Several recent genomic and simulation-based studies have argued that the field of conservation biology has placed too much focus on conserving genome-wide genetic variation, and that the field should instead focus on managing the subset of functional genetic variation that is thought to affect fitness. Here, we critically evaluate the feasibility and likely benefits of this approach in conservation. We find that population genetics theory and empirical results show that conserving genome-wide genetic variation is generally the best approach to prevent inbreeding depression and loss of adaptive potential from driving populations toward extinction. Focusing conservation efforts on presumably functional genetic variation will only be feasible occasionally, often misleading, and counterproductive when prioritized over genome-wide genetic variation. Given the increasing rate of habitat loss and other environmental changes, failure to recognize the detrimental effects of lost genome-wide genetic variation on long-term population viability will only worsen the biodiversity crisis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available