Advertisement

pp 1-18 | Cite as

Population Genomics for the Management of Wild Vertebrate Populations

  • Ashley D. WaltersEmail author
  • Michael K. Schwartz
Chapter
Part of the Population Genomics book series

Abstract

Management of genetic variation in natural populations is necessary to mitigate the effects of environmental change and biodiversity loss. While traditional genetics techniques have aided management of biodiversity, the rapid advancement of genomics technology has provided advancements for the field of biodiversity conservation including increased resolution and identification of adaptive loci corresponding to ecologically relevant phenotypes. In this chapter, we explore how population genomics has been implemented into wildlife management via a literature review and discussions with management and conservation agencies. We discuss the future prospects of population genomics applications in biodiversity conservation and management of wild populations. Overall, we see the potential for population genomics to improve our understanding of wild populations of fish and wildlife and have several important examples that are paving the way for the adoption of these technologies into management. However, there has been a severe lag in the implementation of population genomics data into management decisions, likely due to the length of the research cycle and the slow absorption into regulation and policy.

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation Evolutionary significant unit Management unit Population genomics Wildlife management 

References

  1. Allendorf FW. Genetics and the conservation of natural populations: allozymes to genomes. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:420–30.Google Scholar
  2. Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:697–709.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson EC, Garza JC. A description of full parentage genotyping (online). Report submitted to the Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC; 2005. Retrieved from http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/FED/00675.pdf.
  4. Andrews KS, Nichols KM, Elz A, Tolimieri N, Harvey CJ, Pacunski R, Lowry D, Yamanaka KL, Tonnes DM. Cooperative research sheds light on population structure and listing status of threatened and endangered rockfish species. Conserv Genet. 2018;19:865–78.Google Scholar
  5. Beacham TD, Candy JR, Wallace C, Wetklo M, Deng L, MacConnachie C. Microsatellite mixed-stock identification of Coho Salmon in British Columbia. Mar Coast Fish. 2012;4:85–100.Google Scholar
  6. Bellard C, Cassey P, Blackburn TM. Alien species as a driver of recent extinctions. Biol Lett. 2016;12:20150623.Google Scholar
  7. Benestan LM, Ferchaud A, Hohenlohe PA, Garner BA, Naylor GJP, Baums IB, Schwartz MK, Kelley JL, Luikart G. Conservation genomics of natural and managed populations: building a conceptual and practical framework. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:2967–77.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell KJ, Beek J, Eason CT, Glen AS, Godwin J, Gould F, Holmes ND, Howald GR, Madden FM, Ponder JB, Threadgill DW, Wegmann AS, Baxter GS. The next generation of rodent eradications: innovative technologies and tools to improve species specificity and increase their feasibility on islands. Biol Conserv. 2015;185:47–58.Google Scholar
  9. Çilingir FG, Rheindt FE, Garg KM, Platt K, Platt SG, Bickford DP. Conservation genomics of the endangered Burmese roofed turtle. Conserv Biol. 2017;31:1469–76.Google Scholar
  10. Connon RE, Jeffries KM, Komoroske LM, Todgham AE, Fangue NA. The utility of transcriptomics in fish conservation. J Exp Biol. 2018;221:jeb148833.Google Scholar
  11. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Tasmanian devil PHVA final report. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group; 2008.Google Scholar
  12. Corlett RT. A bigger toolbox: biotechnology in biodiversity conservation. Trends Biotechnol. 2017;35:55–65.Google Scholar
  13. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds ORP, Mace GM, Wayne RK. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000;15:290–5.Google Scholar
  14. D’Elia J, Haig SM, Mullins TD, Miller MP. Ancient DNA reveals substantial genetic diversity in the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) prior to a population bottleneck. Condor. 2016;11:703–14.Google Scholar
  15. Dann TH, Habicht C, Baker TT, Seeb JE. Exploiting genetic diversity to balance conservation and harvest migratory salmon. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2013;70:785–93.Google Scholar
  16. Daume S, Gardner C, Leporati S, Trott P. Western Australia abalone fishery MSC full assessment public certification report. SCS Global Services; 2017. p. 254.Google Scholar
  17. DoF. Abalone aquaculture in Western Australia: principles and considerations relating to management of abalone aquaculture in Western Australia. Fisheries Occasional Publication 132; 2016. p. 18.Google Scholar
  18. Drake JS, Berntson EA, Gustafson RG, Holmes EE, Levin PS, Tolimieri N, Waples RS, Sogard SM, Williams GD, Cope JM. Status review of five rockfish species in Puget Sound, Washington: bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis), canary rockfish (S. pinniger), yelloweye rockfish (S. ruberrimus), greenstriped rockfish (S. elongates), and redstripe rockfish (S. proriger). US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service; 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Epstein B, Jones M, Hamede R, Hendricks S, McCallum H, Murchison EP, Schönfeld B, Wiench C, Hohenlohe P, Storfer A. Rapid evolutionary response to transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12684.Google Scholar
  20. Esvelt KM, Smidler AL, Catteruccia F, Church GM. Emerging technology: concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. Elife. 2014;3:e03401.Google Scholar
  21. Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC. Genomics for genetic rescue. In: Population genomics. Cham: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  22. Fleming IA, Einum S. Experimental tests of genetic divergence of farmed from wild Atlantic salmon due to domestication. ICES J Mar Sci. 1997;54:1051–63.Google Scholar
  23. Fleming IA, Jonsson B, Gross MR, Lamberg A. An experimental study of the reproductive behavior and success of farmed and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). J Appl Ecol. 1996;33:893–905.Google Scholar
  24. Fleming IA, Hindar K, Mjølnerød IB, Jonsson B, Balstad T, Lamberg A. Lifetime success and interactions of farm salmon invading a native population. Proc Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000;267:1517–23.Google Scholar
  25. Fleming IA, Agustsson T, Finstad B, Johnsson JI, Bjornsson BT. Effects of domestication on growth physiology and endocrinology of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2002;59:1323–30.Google Scholar
  26. Frankham R. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol Ecol. 2015;24:2610–8.Google Scholar
  27. Fraser DJ, Bernatchez L. Adaptive evolutionary conservation: towards a unified concept for defining conservation units. Mol Ecol. 2001;10:2741–52.Google Scholar
  28. Funk WC, McKay JK, Hohenlohe PA, Allendorf FW. Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27:489–96.Google Scholar
  29. Funk WC, Forester BR, Converse SJ, Darst C, Morey S. Improving conservation policy with genomics: a guide to integrating adaptive potential into U.S. Endangered Species Act decisions for conservation practitioners and geneticists. Conserv Genet. 2019;20:115–34.Google Scholar
  30. Gjedrem T. The first family based breeding program in aquaculture. Rev Aquac. 2010;2:2–15.Google Scholar
  31. Glover KA, Ottera H, Olsen RE, Slinde E, Taranger GL, Skaala Ø. A comparison of farmed, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) reared under farming conditions. Aquaculture. 2009;286:203–10.Google Scholar
  32. Glover KA, Pertoldi C, Besnier F, Wennevik V, Kent M, Skaala Ø. Atlantic salmon populations invaded by farmed escapees: quantifying genetic introgression with a Bayesian approach and SNPs. BMC Genet. 2013;14:4.Google Scholar
  33. Habicht C, Munro AR, Dann TH, Eggers DM, Templin WD, Witteveen MJ, Baker TT, Howard KG, Rogers Olive SD, Liller HL, Chenoweth EL, Volk EC. Harvest and harvest rates of sockeye salmon stocks in fisheries of the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Program (WASSIP), 2006–2008. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 12-24. Anchorage, AK; 2012.Google Scholar
  34. Harrisson KA, Pavlova A, Telonis-Scott M, Sunnucks P. Using genomics to characterize evolutionary potential for conservation of wild populations. Evol Appl. 2014;7:1008–25.Google Scholar
  35. Hart A, Strain L, Hesp A, Fisher E, Webster F, Brand-Gardner S, Walters S. Marine Stewardship Council Full Assessment Report Western Australian Abalone Managed Fishery. Perth, WA: Department of Fisheries, Western Australia; 2017.Google Scholar
  36. Hawkins CE, Baars C, Hesterman H, Hocking GJ, Jones ME, Lazenby B, Mann D, Mooney N, Pemberton D, Pyecroft S, Restani M, Wiersma J. Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biol Conserv. 2006;131:307–24.Google Scholar
  37. Hearsey JW, Kinziger AP. Diversity in sympatric Chinook salmon runs: timing, relative fat content and maturation. Environ Biol Fishes. 2015;98:413–23.Google Scholar
  38. Henry FE, Sugino K, Tozer A, Branco T, Sternson SM. Cell type-specific transcriptomics of hypothalamic energy-sensing neuron responses to weight loss. Elife. 2015;4:e09800.Google Scholar
  39. Hoban S. Integrative conservation genetics: prioritizing populations using climate predictions, adaptive potential and habitat connectivity. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018;18:14–7.Google Scholar
  40. Hoffman AA, Sgrò CM, Kristensen TN. Revisiting adaptive potential, population size, and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017;32:506–17.Google Scholar
  41. Hohenlohe PA, Hand BK, Andrews KR, Luikart G. Population genomics provides key insights in ecology and evolution. In: Rajora OP, editor. Population genomics: concepts, approaches and applications. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2019. p. 483–510.Google Scholar
  42. Hutchings JA. Collapse and recovery of marine fishes. Nature. 2000;406:882–5.Google Scholar
  43. Johnson JA, Altwegg R, Evans DM, Ewen JG, Gordon IJ. Is there a future for genome-editing technologies in conservation? Anim Conserv. 2016;19:97–101.Google Scholar
  44. Kardos M, Shafer ABA. The perils of gene-targeted conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2018;33:827–39.Google Scholar
  45. Karlsson S, Moen T, Lien S, Glover KA, Hindar K. Generic genetic differences between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon identified from a 7K SNP-chip. Mol Ecol Resour. 2011;11:377–87.Google Scholar
  46. Laikre L, Schwartz MK, Waples RS, Ryman N, GeM Working Group. Compromising genetic diversity in the wild: unmonitored large-scale release of plants and animals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:520–9.Google Scholar
  47. Langin K. Salmon spawn fierce debate over protecting endangered species, thanks to a single gene. Sci News. 2018. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/salmon-spawn-fierce-debate-over-protecting-endangered-species-thanks-single-gene.
  48. Larson WA, Seeb JE, Pascal CE, Templin WD, Seeb LW. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified through genotyping-by-sequencing improve stock identification of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) from western Alaska. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2014;71:698–708.Google Scholar
  49. Lees C, Andrew P. The Tasmanian devil insurance meta-population: 2012 evaluation and review. Apple Valley, MN: IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group; 2012.Google Scholar
  50. Luikart G, England PR, Tallmon D, Jordan S, Taberlet P. The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nat Rev Genet. 2003;4:981–94.Google Scholar
  51. Luikart G, Kardos M, Hand B, Rajora OP, Aitken S, Hohenlohe PA. Population genomics: advancing understanding of nature. In: Rajora OP, editor. Population genomics: concepts, approaches and applications. Cham: Spring Nature Switzerland AG; 2019. p. 3–79.Google Scholar
  52. Lynch VJ, Bedoya-Reina OC, Ratan A, Sulak M, Drautz-Moses DI, Perry GH, Miller W, Schuster SC. Elephantid genomes reveal the molecular bases of wooly mammoth adaptations to the arctic. Cell Rep. 2015;12:217–8.Google Scholar
  53. McCallum H, Tompkins DM, Jones M, Lachish S, Marvanek S, Lazenby B, Jocking G, Wiersma J, Hawkins CE. Distribution and impacts of Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease. Ecohealth. 2007;4:318–25.Google Scholar
  54. Mei Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun ZS, Ju XD. Recent progress in CRISPR/Cas9 technology. J Genet Genomics. 2016;43:63–75.Google Scholar
  55. Mitrovski P, Heinze DA, Guthridge K, Weeks AR. Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci from the Australian endemic mountain pygmy-possum, Burramys parvus Broom. Mol Ecol Notes. 2005;5:395–7.Google Scholar
  56. Moritz C. Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol. 2002;51:238–54.Google Scholar
  57. Mortiz C. Defining ‘Evolutionary Significant Units’ for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 1994;9:373–5.Google Scholar
  58. Munro AR, Habicht C, Dann TH, Eggers DM, Templin WD, Witteveen MJ, Baker TT, Howard KG, Jasper JR, Rogers Olive SD, Liller HL, Chenoweth EL, Volk EC. Harvest and harvest rates of Chum salmon stocks in fisheries of the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Program (WASSIP), 2007–2009. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Special Publication No. 12-25, Anchorage, AK; 2012.Google Scholar
  59. Murchison EP, Schulz-Trieglaff OB, Ning Z, Alexandrov LB, Bauer MJ, Fu B, Hims M, Ding Z, Ivakhno S, Stewart C, Ng BL, Wong W, Aken B, White S, Alsop A, Becq J, Bignell GR, Cheetham RK, Cheng W, Connor TR, Cox AJ, Feng ZP, Gu Y, Grocock RJ, Harris SR, Khrebtukova I, Kingsbury Z, Kowarsky M, Kreiss A, Luo S, Marshall J, McBride DJ, Murray L, Pearse AM, Raine K, Rasolonjatovo I, Shaw R, Tedder P, Tregidgo C, Vilella AJ, Wedge DC, Woods GM, Gormley N, Humphray S, Schroth G, Smith G, Hall K, Searle SM, Carter NP, Papenfuss AT, Futreal PA, Campbell PJ, Yang F, Bentley DR, Evers DJ, Stratton MR. Genome sequencing and analysis of the Tasmanian devil and its transmissible cancer. Cell. 2012;148:780–91.Google Scholar
  60. Myers RA, Worm B. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature. 2003;423:280–3.Google Scholar
  61. Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GJ, Teel D, Lierheimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW, Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS. Status Review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-NWFSC-35; 1998.Google Scholar
  62. Pearse DE. Saving the spandrels? Adaptive genomic variation in conservation and fisheries management. J Fish Biol. 2016;89:2697–716.Google Scholar
  63. Pearse AM, Swift K. Allograft theory: transmission of devil facial-tumour disease. Nature. 2006;439:549.Google Scholar
  64. Phelps M, Seeb L, Seeb J. Transforming ecology and conservation biology through genome editing. Conserv Biol. 2019;  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13292.Google Scholar
  65. Prince DJ, O’Rourke SM, Thompson TQ, Ali OA, Lyman HS, Saglam IK, Hotaling TJ, Spidle AP, Miller MR. The evolutionary basis of premature migration in Pacific salmon highlights the utility of genomics for informing conservation. Evol Genet. 2017;3:e1603198.Google Scholar
  66. Quinn TP, McGinnity P, Reed TE. The paradox of “premature migration” by adult anadromous salmonid fishes: patterns and hypotheses. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2015;73:1015–30.Google Scholar
  67. Ralls K, Ballou JD. Genetic status and management of California condors. Condor. 2004;106:215–28.Google Scholar
  68. Ralls K, Ballou JD, Rideout BA, Frankham R. Genetic management of chondrodystrophy in the California condor. Anim Conserv. 2006;3:145–53.Google Scholar
  69. Randi E. Detecting hybridization between wild species and their domesticated relatives. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:285–93.Google Scholar
  70. Razgour O, Taggart JB, Manel S, Juste J, Ibánez C, Rebelo H, Alberdi A, Jones G, Park K. An integrated framework to identify wildlife populations under threat from climate change. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018;18:18–31.Google Scholar
  71. Reed DH, Frankham R. Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:230–7.Google Scholar
  72. Rey O, Eizaguirre C, Angers B, Baltazar-Soares M, Sagonas K, Prunier JG, Blanchet S. Linking epigenetics and biological conservation: towards a conservation epigenetics perspective. Funct Ecol. 2019:1–14.Google Scholar
  73. Ryder O, Miller W, Ralls K, Ballou JD, Steiner CC, Mitelberg A, Romanov M, Chemnick LG, Mace M, Schuster S. Whole genome sequencing of California condors is now utilized for guiding genetic management. International plant and animal genome XXIV conference, San Diego, CA; 2016.Google Scholar
  74. Sandler R. The ethics of genetic engineering and gene drives in conservation. Conservat Genet. 2019;  https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13407.
  75. Sandoval-Castillo J, Robinson NA, Hart AM, Strain LWS, Beheregaray LB. Seascape genomics reveals adaptive divergence in a connected and commercially important mollusk, the greenlip abalone (Haliotis laevigata), along a longitudinal environmental gradient. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:1603–20.Google Scholar
  76. Schwartz MK, McKelvey KS, Cushman SA, Luikart G. Landscape genomics: a brief perspective. In: Spatial complexity, informatics, and wildlife conservation. Tokyo: Springer; 2010. p. 165–74.Google Scholar
  77. Sgró CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA. Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol Appl. 2011;4:326–37.Google Scholar
  78. Shafer ABA, Wolf JBW, Alves PC, Bergström L, Bruford MW, Brännström I, Colling G, Dalén L, De Meester L, Ekblom R, Fawcett KD, Fior S, Hajibabaei M, Hill JA, Hoezel AR, Höglund J, Jensen EL, Krause J, Kristensen TN, Krützen M, JK MK, Norman AJ, Ogden R, Österling EM, Ouborg NJ, Piccolo J, Popović D, Primmer CR, Reed FA, Roumet M, Salmona J, Schenekar T, Schwartz MK, Segelbacher G, Senn H, Thaulow J, Valtonen M, Veale A, Vergeer P, Vijay N, Vilà C, Weissensteiner M, Wennerström L, Wheat CW, Zieliṅski P. Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:78–87.Google Scholar
  79. Shapiro B. Mammoth 2.0: will genome engineering resurrect extinct species. Genome Biol. 2015;16:228.Google Scholar
  80. Skaala Ø, Hoyheim B, Glover K, Dahle G. Microsatellite analysis in domesticated and wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.): allelic diversity and identification of individuals. Aquaculture. 2004;240:131–43.Google Scholar
  81. Steele CA, Anderson EC, Ackerman MW, Hess MA, Campbell NR, Narum SR, Campbell MR. A validation of parentage-based tagging using hatchery Steelhead in the Snake River basin. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2013;70:1046–54.Google Scholar
  82. Taranger GL, Karlsen Ø, Bannister RJ, Glover KA, Husa V, Karlsbakk E, Kvamme BO, Boxaspen KK, Bjørn PA, Finstad B, Madhun AS, Morton HC, Svåsand T. Risk assessment of the environmental impact of Norwegian Atlantic salmon farming. ICES J Mar Sci. 2014;72:997–1021.Google Scholar
  83. Thompson TQ, Bellinger RM, O’Rourke SM, Prince DJ, Stevenson AE, Rodriques AT, Sloat MR, Speller CF, Yang DY, Butler VL, Banks MA, Miller MR. Anthropogenic habitat alteration leads to rapid loss of adaptive variation and restoration potential in wild salmon populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:177–86.Google Scholar
  84. Todd EV, Black MA, Gemmell NJ. The power and promise of RNA-seq in ecology and evolution. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:1224–41.Google Scholar
  85. USFWS. California condor recovery plan, third revision, US Fish and Wildlife Service; 1996.Google Scholar
  86. USFWS-NMFS. Policy regarding the recognition of distinct vertebrate population segments under the Endangered Species Act. Fed Regist. 1996;61:4721–5.Google Scholar
  87. Utter F, Ryman N. Genetic markers and mixed stock fisheries. Fisheries. 1993;18:11–21.Google Scholar
  88. Vrijenhoek RC, Leberg PL. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater: a comment on management for MHC diversity in captive populations. Conserv Biol. 1991;5:252–4.Google Scholar
  89. Warheit KI. Measuring reproductive interactions between hatchery-origin and wild Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) from northern Puget Sound populations potentially affected by segregated hatchery programs. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Unpublished Report, Olympia, WA; 2014.Google Scholar
  90. Webber BL, Raghu S, Edwards OR. Is CRISPR-based gene drive a biocontrol silver bullet or global conservation threat? Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:10565–7.Google Scholar
  91. Weeks AR, Heinze D, Perrin L, Stoklosa J, Hoffmann AA, van Rooyen A, Kelly T, Mansergh I. Genetic rescue increases fitness and aids rapid recovery of an endangered marsupial population. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1071.Google Scholar
  92. Wright B, Willet CE, Hamede R, Jones M, Belov K, Wade CM. Variants in the host genome may inhibit tumour growth in devil facial tumours: evidence from genome-wide association. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish ConservationMissoulaUSA

Personalised recommendations