Advertisement

pp 1-35 | Cite as

Genomics for Genetic Rescue

  • Sarah W. FitzpatrickEmail author
  • W. Chris Funk
Chapter
Part of the Population Genomics book series

Abstract

Genetic rescue, where new alleles cause increased population growth, has successfully reversed population declines in several iconic species. Concerns over outbreeding depression and genomic swamping limit this technique’s application in wildlife management. New genomic approaches can improve the implementation and monitoring of genetic rescue, making it an even more effective management strategy. In planning stages, genomics can help identify populations that would benefit most from augmented gene flow and populations and individuals that would be the best sources. After augmented gene flow, genomics can be used to monitor the outcome of genetic rescue and determine if and when additional gene flow is needed. Here, we outline specific ways in which genomics can be used to (1) test for inbreeding and inbreeding depression; (2) predict the probability that gene flow will cause outbreeding depression versus genetic rescue; (3) monitor the results of assisted gene flow; and (4) determine the genetic architecture underlying genetic rescue to improve future attempts. We conclude by outlining recommendations on how genomic data can be used to improve the effectiveness of genetic rescue and reduce uncertainty about its outcome.

Keywords

Fitness Gene flow Genetic drift Genetic rescue Inbreeding depression Population genomics Small populations 

Notes

Glossary

Absolute fitness

Mean number of offspring per capita, measured as population growth rate or abundance.

Assisted gene flow

Managed movement of individuals into populations to reduce local maladaptation to climate or other environmental change.

Demographic rescue

An increase in population growth caused by the addition of new individuals.

Evolutionary rescue

An increase in population growth resulting from adaptation to otherwise extinction-causing environmental stress from standing genetic variation, de novo mutation, or gene flow.

Genetic load

The reduction in mean fitness of members of a population owing to deleterious genes, or gene combinations, in the population.

Genetic rescue

An increase in population growth owing to immigration of new alleles beyond the demographic contribution of immigrants themselves.

Genetic restoration

An increase in genetic variation and relative, but not absolute, fitness owing to immigration of new alleles.

Identical by descent (IBD)

A matching segment of DNA shared by two or more individuals that has been inherited from a common ancestor without any intervening recombination.

Inbreeding

Mating between related individuals which results in an increase of homozygosity in the progeny because they possess alleles that are identical by descent.

Inbreeding depression

The relative reduction in fitness of progeny from matings between related individuals compared with progeny from unrelated individuals.

Outbreeding depression

Reduced fitness of offspring from matings between genetically divergent individuals.

Runs of homozygosity (ROH)

Stretches of homozygous genotypes at mapped SNPs.

References

  1. Aitken SN, Whitlock MC. Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2013;44:367–88.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 2009;19:1655–64.Google Scholar
  3. Allendorf FW, Knudsen KL, Blake GM. Frequencies of null alleles at enzyme loci in natural populations of ponderosa and red pine. Genetics. 1982;100:497–504.Google Scholar
  4. Allendorf FW, Leary RF, Spruell P, Wenburg JK. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16:613–22.Google Scholar
  5. Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11:697–709.Google Scholar
  6. Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN. Conservation and the genetics of populations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2013.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson EC, Thompson EA. A model-based method for identifying species hybrids using multilocus genetic data. Genetics. 2002;160:1217–29.Google Scholar
  8. Andrews KR, Good JM, Miller MR, Luikart G, Hohenlohe PA. Harnessing the power of RADseq for ecological and evolutionary genomics. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17:81–92.Google Scholar
  9. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H, Richards M, Boyaval P, Moineau S, et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science. 2007;315:1709–12.Google Scholar
  10. Bell G, Gonzalez A. Evolutionary rescue can prevent extinction following environmental change. Ecol Lett. 2009;12:942–8.Google Scholar
  11. Bell G, Gonzalez A. Adaptation and evolutionary rescue in metapopulations experiencing environmental deterioration. Science. 2011;332:1327–30.Google Scholar
  12. Benestan LM, Ferchaud AL, Hohenlohe PA, Garner BA, Naylor GJP, Baums IB, et al. Conservation genomics of natural and managed populations: building a conceptual and practical framework. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:2967–77.Google Scholar
  13. Bouzat JL. Conservation genetics of population bottlenecks: the role of chance, selection, and history. Conserv Genet. 2010;11:463–78.Google Scholar
  14. Bradburd GS, Ralph PL, Coop GM. A spatial framework for understanding population structure and admixture. PLoS Genet. 2016;12:e1005703.Google Scholar
  15. Brown JH, Kodric-Brown A. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology. 1977;58:445.Google Scholar
  16. Browning SR, Browning BL. Accurate non-parametric estimation of recent effective population size from segments of identity by descent. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;97:404–18.Google Scholar
  17. Burton RS, Pereira RJ, Barreto FS. Cytonuclear genomic interactions and hybrid breakdown. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2013;44:281–302.Google Scholar
  18. Carlson SM, Cunningham CJ, Westley PAH. Evolutionary rescue in a changing world. Trends Ecol Evol. 2014;29:521–30.Google Scholar
  19. Catchen JM, Hohenlohe PA, Bernatchez L, Funk WC, Andrews KR, Allendorf FW. Unbroken: RADseq remains a powerful tool for understanding the genetics of adaptation in natural populations. Mol Ecol Resour. 2017;17:362–5.Google Scholar
  20. Ceballos G, Ehrlich PR, Dirzo R. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. PNAS. 2017;114:E6089–96.Google Scholar
  21. Ceballos FC, Joshi PK, Clark DW, Ramsay M, Wilson JF. Runs of homozygosity: windows into population history and trait architecture. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19:220–34.Google Scholar
  22. Chapman JR, Nakagawa S, Coltman DW, Slate J, Sheldon BC. A quantitative review of heterozygosity-fitness correlations in animal populations. Mol Ecol. 2009;18:2746–65.Google Scholar
  23. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D. The genetic basis of inbreeding depression. Genet Res. 1999;74:329–40.Google Scholar
  24. Charlesworth D, Willis JH. The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet. 2009;10:783–96.Google Scholar
  25. Chen N, Cosgrove EJ, Bowman R, Fitzpatrick JW, Clark AG. Genomic consequences of population decline in the endangered Florida scrub-jay. Curr Biol. 2016;26:2974–9.Google Scholar
  26. Coltman DW, Slate J. Microsatellite measures of inbreeding: a meta-analysis. Evolution. 2003;57:971–83.Google Scholar
  27. Corander J, Waldmann P, Sillanpää MJ. Bayesian analysis of genetic differentiation between populations. Genetics. 2003;163:367–74.Google Scholar
  28. Cornuet JM, Luikart G. Description and power analysis of two tests for detecting recent population bottlenecks from allele frequency data. Genetics. 1996;144:2001–14.Google Scholar
  29. Coyne JA, Orr HA. Speciation. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates; 2004.Google Scholar
  30. Crow JF, Kimura M. An introduction to population genetics theory. New York: Harper & Row; 1970.Google Scholar
  31. Delsuc F, Brinkmann H, Philippe H. Phylogenomics and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Nat Rev Genet. 2005;6:361–75.Google Scholar
  32. Do C, Waples RS, Peel D, Macbeth GM, Tillett BJ, Ovenden JR. NeEstimatorv2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data. Mol Ecol Resour. 2013;14:209–14.Google Scholar
  33. Domingos FMCB, Colli GR, Lemmon A, Lemmon EM, Beheregaray LB. In the shadows: phylogenomics and coalescent species delimitation unveil cryptic diversity in a Cerrado endemic lizard (Squamata: Tropidurus). Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2017;107:455–65.Google Scholar
  34. Edmands S. Heterosis and outbreeding depression in interpopulation crosses spanning a wide range of divergence. Evolution. 1999;53:1757–68.Google Scholar
  35. Edmands S. Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Mol Ecol. 2006;16:463–75.Google Scholar
  36. Edmands S, Timmerman CC. Modeling factors affecting the severity of outbreeding depression. Conserv Biol. 2003;17:883–92.Google Scholar
  37. Ekblom R, Smeds L, Ellegren H. Patterns of sequencing coverage bias revealed by ultra-deep sequencing of vertebrate mitochondria. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:467.Google Scholar
  38. Fitzpatrick SW, Gerberich JC, Kronenberger JA, Angeloni LM, Funk WC. Locally adapted traits maintained in the face of high gene flow. Ecol Lett. 2015;18:37–47.Google Scholar
  39. Fitzpatrick SW, Gerberich JC, Angeloni LM, Bailey LL, Broder ED, Torres Dowdall J, et al. Gene flow from an adaptively divergent source causes rescue through genetic and demographic factors in two wild populations of Trinidadian guppies. Evol Appl. 2016;9:879–91.Google Scholar
  40. Fitzpatrick SW, Handelsman C, Torres-Dowdall J, Ruell E, Broder ED, Kronenberger JA, Reznick DN, Ghalambor CK, Angeloni LM, Funk WC. Gene flow constrains and facilitates genetically based divergence in quantitative traits. Copeia. 2017;105:462–74.Google Scholar
  41. Foll M, Shim H, Jensen JD. WFABC: a Wright-Fisher ABC-based approach for inferring effective population sizes and selection coefficients from time-sampled data. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15:87–98.Google Scholar
  42. Forester BR, Lasky JR, Wagner HH, Urban DL. Comparing methods for detecting multilocus adaptation with multivariate genotype-environment associations. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:2215–33.Google Scholar
  43. Frankham R. Genetics and extinction. Biol Conserv. 2005;126:131–40.Google Scholar
  44. Frankham R. Genetic rescue benefits persist to at least the F3 generation, based on a meta-analysis. Biol Conserv. 2016;195:33–6.Google Scholar
  45. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Eldridge MDB, Lacy RC, Ralls K, Dudash MR, et al. Predicting the probability of outbreeding depression. Conserv Biol. 2011;25:465–75.Google Scholar
  46. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Ralls K, Eldridge M, Dudash MR, Fenster CB, et al. Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.Google Scholar
  47. Funk WC, McKay JK, Hohenlohe PA, Allendorf FW. Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27:489–96.Google Scholar
  48. Funk WC, Lovich RE, Hohenlohe PA, Hofman CA, Morrison SA, Sillett TS, et al. Adaptive divergence despite strong genetic drift: genomic analysis of the evolutionary mechanisms causing genetic differentiation in the island fox (Urocyon littoralis). Mol Ecol. 2016;25:2176–94.Google Scholar
  49. 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. 2018;65:2481.Google Scholar
  50. Garant D, Forde SE, Hendry AP. The multifarious effects of dispersal and gene flow on contemporary adaptation. Funct Ecol. 2007;21:434–43.Google Scholar
  51. Garcia-Dorado A. Understanding and predicting the fitness decline of shrunk populations: inbreeding, purging, mutation, and standard selection. Genetics. 2012;190:1461–76.Google Scholar
  52. Gompert Z, Buerkle CA. Bayesian estimation of genomic clines. Mol Ecol. 2011;20:2111–27.Google Scholar
  53. Gravel S. Population genetics models of local ancestry. Genetics. 2012;191:607–19.Google Scholar
  54. Grueber CE, Sutton JT, Heber S, Briskie JV, Jamieson IG, Robertson BC. Reciprocal translocation of small numbers of inbred individuals rescues immunogenetic diversity. Mol Ecol. 2017;26:2660–73.Google Scholar
  55. Gulisija D, Crow JF. Inferring purging from pedigree data. Evolution. 2007;61:1043–51.Google Scholar
  56. Gutenkunst RN, Hernandez RD, Williamson SH, Bustamante CD. Inferring the joint demographic history of multiple populations from multidimensional SNP frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2009;5:e1000695.Google Scholar
  57. Hale ML, Burg TM, Steeves TE. Sampling for microsatellite-based population genetic studies: 25 to 30 individuals per population is enough to accurately estimate allele frequencies. PLoS One. 2012;7:e45170.Google Scholar
  58. Hamilton JA, Miller JM. Adaptive introgression as a resource for management and genetic conservation in a changing climate. Conserv Biol. 2016;30:33–41.Google Scholar
  59. Hansson B, Westerberg L. On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations. Mol Ecol. 2002;11:2467–74.Google Scholar
  60. Harris K, Nielsen R. Inferring demographic history from a spectrum of shared haplotype lengths. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003521.Google Scholar
  61. Harrisson KA, Pavlova A, Gonçalves da Silva A, Rose R, Bull JK, Lancaster ML, et al. Scope for genetic rescue of an endangered subspecies though re-establishing natural gene flow with another subspecies. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:1242–58.Google Scholar
  62. Havird JC, Fitzpatrick SW, Kronenberger J, Funk WC, Angeloni LM, Sloan DB. Sex, mitochondria, and genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:96–9.Google Scholar
  63. Hedrick PW, Garcia-Dorado A. Understanding inbreeding depression, purging, and genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:940–52.Google Scholar
  64. Hedrick PW, Adams JR, Vucetich JA. Reevaluating and broadening the definition of genetic rescue. Conserv Biol. 2011;25:1069–70.Google Scholar
  65. Hedrick PW, Allendorf FW, Waples RS. Genetic engineering in conservation. Nature. 2013;502:303.Google Scholar
  66. Hedrick PW, Peterson RO, Vucetich LM, Adams JR, Vucetich JA. Genetic rescue in Isle Royale wolves: genetic analysis and the collapse of the population. Conserv Genet. 2014;15:1111–21.Google Scholar
  67. Hill GE. Mitonuclear ecology. Mol Biol Evol. 2015;32:1917–27.Google Scholar
  68. Hoban S, Kelley JL, Lotterhos KE, Antolin MF, Bradburd G, Lowry DB, et al. Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions. Am Nat. 2016;188:379–97.Google Scholar
  69. Hoffman JI, Simpson F, David P, Rijks JM, Kuiken T, Thorne MAS, et al. High-throughput sequencing reveals inbreeding depression in a natural population. PNAS. 2014;111:3775–80.Google Scholar
  70. Hoffmann AA, Rieseberg LH. Revisiting the impact of inversions in evolution: from population genetic markers to drivers of adaptive shifts and speciation? Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2008;39:21–42.Google Scholar
  71. Hoffmann AA, Sgro CM, Kristensen TN. Revisiting adaptive potential, population size, and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2017;32:506–17.Google Scholar
  72. Hofman CA, Rick TC, Hawkins MTR, Funk WC, Ralls K, Boser CL, et al. Mitochondrial genomes suggest rapid evolution of dwarf California Channel Islands foxes (Urocyon littoralis). PLoS One. 2015;10:e0118240.Google Scholar
  73. Hogg JT, Forbes SH, Steele BM, Luikart G. Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2006;273:1491–9.Google Scholar
  74. Hohenlohe PA, Day MD, Amish SJ, Miller MR, Kamps-Hughes N, Boyer MC, et al. Genomic patterns of introgression in rainbow and westslope cutthroat trout illuminated by overlapping paired-end RAD sequencing. Mol Ecol. 2013;22:3002–13.Google Scholar
  75. Jeffries KM, Connon RE, Davis BE, Komoroske LM, Britton MT, Sommer T, et al. Effects of high temperatures on threatened estuarine fishes during periods of extreme drought. J Exp Biol. 2016;219:1705–16.Google Scholar
  76. Johnson WE, Onorato DP, Roelke ME, Land ED, Cunningham M, Belden RC, et al. Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. Science. 2010;329:1641–5.Google Scholar
  77. Jombart T, Ahmed I. Adegenet 1.3-1: new tools for the analysis of genome-wide SNP data. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:3070–1.Google Scholar
  78. Jones MR, Good JM. Targeted capture in evolutionary and ecological genomics. Mol Ecol. 2016;25:185–202.Google Scholar
  79. Kardos M, Luikart G, Allendorf FW. Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees. Heredity. 2015;115:63–72.Google Scholar
  80. Kardos M, Taylor HR, Ellegren H, Luikart G, Allendorf FW. Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild. Evol Appl. 2016;9:1205–18.Google Scholar
  81. Kardos M, Qvarnstrom A, Ellegren H. Inferring individual inbreeding and demographic history from segments of identity by descent in Ficedula flycatcher genome sequences. Genetics. 2017;205:1319–34.Google Scholar
  82. Keller LF, Waller DM. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends Ecol Evol. 2002;17:230–41.Google Scholar
  83. Keller MC, Visscher PM, Goddard ME, Rosenberg NA. Quantification of inbreeding due to distant ancestors and its detection using dense single nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics. 2011;189:237–49.Google Scholar
  84. Kemppainen P, Knight CG, Sarma DK, Hlaing T, Prakash A, Maung Maung YN, et al. Linkage disequilibrium network analysis (LDna) gives a global view of chromosomal inversions, local adaptation and geographic structure. Mol Ecol Resour. 2015;15:1031–45.Google Scholar
  85. Kirin M, McQuillan R, Franklin CS, Campbell H, McKeigue PM, Wilson JF. Genomic runs of homozygosity record population history and consanguinity. PLoS One. 2010;5:e13996.Google Scholar
  86. Kohn MH, Murphy WJ, Ostrander EA, Wayne RK. Genomics and conservation genetics. Trends Ecol Evol. 2006;21:629–37.Google Scholar
  87. Kovach RP, Hand BK, Hohenlohe PA, Cosart TF, Boyer MC, Neville HH, et al. Vive la résistance: genome-wide selection against introduced alleles in invasive hybrid zones. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2016a;283:20161380.Google Scholar
  88. Kovach RP, Luikart G, Lowe WH, Boyer MC. Risk and efficacy of human-enabled interspecific hybridization for climate-change adaptation: response to Hamilton and Miller (2016). Conserv Biol. 2016b;30:428–30.Google Scholar
  89. Kristensen TN, Pedersen KS, Vermeulen CJ, Loeschcke V. Research on inbreeding in the “omic” era. Trends Ecol Evol. 2010;25:44–52.Google Scholar
  90. Kronenberger JA, Funk WC, Smith JW, Fitzpatrick SW, Angeloni LM, Broder ED, et al. Testing the demographic effects of divergent immigrants on small populations of Trinidadian guppies. Anim Conserv. 2017a;20:3–11.Google Scholar
  91. Kronenberger JA, Fitzpatrick SW, Angeloni LM, Broder ED, Ruell EW, Funk WC. Playing God with guppies – informing tough conservation decisions using a model experimental system. Anim Conserv. 2017b;20:18–9.Google Scholar
  92. Kronenberger JA, Gerberich JC, Fitzpatrick SW, Broder ED, Angeloni LM, Funk WC. An experimental test of alternative population augmentation scenarios. Conserv Biol. 2018;32:838–48.Google Scholar
  93. Leberg PL, Firmin BD. Role of inbreeding depression and purging in captive breeding and restoration programmes. Mol Ecol. 2008;17:334–43.Google Scholar
  94. Lemmon AR, Emme SA, Lemmon EM. Anchored hybrid enrichment for massively high-throughput phylogenomics. Syst Biol. 2012;61:727–44.Google Scholar
  95. Liu S, Lorenzen ED, Fumagalli M, Li B, Harris K, Xiong Z, et al. Population genomics reveal recent speciation and rapid evolutionary adaptation in polar bears. Curr Biol. 2014;157:785–94.Google Scholar
  96. Lotterhos KE, Whitlock MC. Evaluation of demographic history and neutral parameterization on the performance of FST outlier tests. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:2178–92.Google Scholar
  97. Lowry DB, Hoban S, Kelley JL, Lotterhos KE, Reed LK, Antolin MF, et al. Breaking RAD: an evaluation of the utility of restriction site-associated DNA sequencing for genome scans of adaptation. Mol Ecol Resour. 2016.Google Scholar
  98. Madsen T, Ujvari B, Olsson M. Novel genes continue to enhance population growth in adders (Vipera berus). Biol Conserv. 2004;120:145–7.Google Scholar
  99. McCullough DR, Fischer JK, Ballou JD. From bottleneck to metapopulation: recovery of the tule elk in California. In: Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Washington: Island Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  100. Meek MH, Wells C, Tomalty KM, Ashander J, Cole EM, Gille DA, et al. Fear of failure in conservation: the problem and potential solutions to aid conservation of extremely small populations. Biol Conserv. 2015;184:209–17.Google Scholar
  101. Meirmans PG. The trouble with isolation by distance. Mol Ecol. 2012;21:2839–46.Google Scholar
  102. Miller JM, Hamilton JA. Interspecies hybridization in the conservation toolbox: response to Kovach et al. (2016). Conserv Biol. 2016;30:431–3.Google Scholar
  103. Miller JM, Poissant J, Hogg JT, Coltman DW. Genomic consequences of genetic rescue in an insular population of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Mol Ecol. 2012;21:1583–96.Google Scholar
  104. Miller JM, Malenfant RM, David P, Davis CS, Poissant J, Hogg JT, et al. Estimating genome-wide heterozygosity: effects of demographic history and marker type. Heredity. 2014;112:240–7.Google Scholar
  105. Mills LS, Allendorf FW. The one-migrant-per-generation rule in conservation and management. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:1509–18.Google Scholar
  106. Muhlfeld CC, Kalinowski ST, McMahon TE, Taper ML, Painter S, Leary RF, et al. Hybridization rapidly reduces fitness of a native trout in the wild. Biol Lett. 2009;5:328–31.Google Scholar
  107. Newman D, Pilson D. Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution. 1997;51:354–62.Google Scholar
  108. Nielsen R. Molecular signatures of natural selection. Annu Rev Genet. 2005;39:197–218.Google Scholar
  109. Ouborg NJ, Pertoldi C, Loeschcke V, Bijlsma RK, Hedrick PW. Conservation genetics in transition to conservation genomics. Trends Genet. 2010;26:177–87.Google Scholar
  110. Paige KN. The functional genomics of inbreeding depression: a new approach to an old problem. Bioscience. 2010;60:267–77.Google Scholar
  111. Pante E, Abdelkrim J, Viricel A, Gey D, France SC, Boisselier MC, et al. Use of RAD sequencing for delimiting species. Heredity. 2014;114:450–9.Google Scholar
  112. Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D. Population structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet. 2006;2:e190.Google Scholar
  113. Pemberton J. Measuring inbreeding depression in the wild: the old ways are the best. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:613–5.Google Scholar
  114. Pemberton JM. Wild pedigrees: the way forward. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;275:613–21.Google Scholar
  115. Peñalba JV, Smith LL, Tonione MA, Sass C, Hykin SM, Skipwith PL, et al. Sequence capture using PCR-generated probes: a cost-effective method of targeted high-throughput sequencing for nonmodel organisms. Mol Ecol Resour. 2014;14:1000–10.Google Scholar
  116. Pickrell JK, Pritchard JK. Inference of population splits and mixtures from genome-wide allele frequency data. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002967.Google Scholar
  117. Pierson JC, Coates DJ, Oostermeijer JGB, Beissinger SR, Bragg JG, Sunnucks P, et al. Genetic factors in threatened species recovery plans on three continents. Front Ecol Environ. 2016;14:433–40.Google Scholar
  118. Pool JE, Hellmann I, Jensen JD, Nielsen R. Population genetic inference from genomic sequence variation. Genome Res. 2010;20:291–300.Google Scholar
  119. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics. 2000;155:945–59.Google Scholar
  120. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, et al. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:559–75.Google Scholar
  121. Rellstab C, Gugerli F, Eckert AJ, Hancock AM, Holderegger R. A practical guide to environmental association analysis in landscape genomics. Mol Ecol. 2015;24:4348–70.Google Scholar
  122. Rieseberg LH. Chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16:351–8.Google Scholar
  123. Robinson JA, Ortega-Del Vecchyo D, Fan Z, Kim BY, vonHoldt BM, Marsden CD, et al. Genomic flatlining in the endangered Island fox. Curr Biol. 2016;26:1183–9.Google Scholar
  124. Rohland N, Reich D, Mallick S, Meyer M, Green RE, Georgiadis NJ, et al. Genomic DNA sequences from mastodon and woolly mammoth reveal deep speciation of forest and savanna elephants. PLoS Biol. 2010;8:e1000564.Google Scholar
  125. Saccheri I, Kuussaari M, Kankare M, Vikman P, Fortelius W, Hanski I. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature. 1998;392:491–4.Google Scholar
  126. Schou MF, Bechsgaard J, Muñoz J, Kristensen TN. Genome-wide regulatory deterioration impedes adaptive responses to stress in inbred populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 2018;72:1614–28.Google Scholar
  127. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples RS. Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007;22:25–33.Google Scholar
  128. Slate J, David P, Dodds KG, Veenvliet BA, Glass BC. Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Mol Ecol. 2004;93:255–65.Google Scholar
  129. Spieth PT. Gene flow and genetic differentiation. Genetics. 1974;78:961–5.Google Scholar
  130. Stoffel MA, Esser M, Kardos M, Humble E, Nichols H, David P, et al. inbreedR: an R package for the analysis of inbreeding based on genetic markers. Methods Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1331–9.Google Scholar
  131. Storfer A. Gene flow and endangered species translocations: a topic revisited. Biol Conserv. 1999;87:173–80.Google Scholar
  132. Stuglik MT, Radwan J, Babik W. jMHC: software assistant for multilocus genotyping of gene families using next-generation amplicon sequencing. Mol Ecol Resour. 2011;11:739–42.Google Scholar
  133. Sukumaran J, Knowles LL. Multispecies coalescent delimits structure, not species. PNAS. 2017;114:1607–12.Google Scholar
  134. Szulkin M, Bierne N, David P. Heterozygosity-fitness correlations: a time for reappraisal. Evolution. 2010;64:1202–17.Google Scholar
  135. Tallmon DA. Get a move on: the value of rescue. Anim Conserv. 2017;20:16–7.Google Scholar
  136. Tallmon DA, Luikart G, Waples RS. The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19:489–96.Google Scholar
  137. Thomas MA, Roemer GW, Donlan CJ, Dickson BG, Matocq M, Malaney J. Gene tweaking for conservation. Nature. 2013;501:485–6.Google Scholar
  138. Weese DJ, Schwartz AK, Bentzen P, Hendry AP, Kinnison MT. Eco-evolutionary effects on population recovery following catastrophic disturbance. Evol Appl. 2011;4:354–66.Google Scholar
  139. Westemeier RL. Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population. Science. 1998;282:1695–8.Google Scholar
  140. White M. Modes of speciation. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman; 1978.Google Scholar
  141. Whiteley AR, Fitzpatrick SW, Funk WC, Tallmon DA. Genetic rescue to the rescue. Trends Ecol Evol. 2015;30:42–9.Google Scholar
  142. Willi Y, Van Buskirk J, Hoffmann AA. Limits to the adaptive potential of small populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2006;37:433–58.Google Scholar
  143. Wright S. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat. 1922;56:330–8.Google Scholar
  144. Wright S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics. 1931;16:0097–159.Google Scholar
  145. Zhang C, Rannala B, Yang Z. Bayesian species delimitation can be robust to guide-tree inference errors. Syst Biol. 2014;63:993–1004.Google Scholar
  146. Zhu B, Ashley-Koch AE, Dunson DB. Generalized admixture mapping for complex traits. G3: Genes Genomes Genetics. 2013;3:1165–75.Google Scholar
  147. Zuk M, Rotenberry JT, Tinghitella RM. Silent night: adaptive disappearance of a sexual signal in a parasitized population of field crickets. Biol Lett. 2006;2:521–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Department of Integrative Biology, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, and Behavior ProgramMichigan State UniversityHickory CornersUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology, Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations