The Limits to Knowledge in Conservation Genetics
Science is a “way of knowing” (Moore, 1984) that distinguishes itself by developing theories capable of prediction; however, in studies at the interface of evolution and the environment, this task can become formidable. The future direction of evolutionary change is intrinsically unpredictable, because the unit of study (the population) cannot be isolated from changes in its environment. In contrast, the physical sciences and most of Biology have been able to achieve the goal of prediction by studying systems that generally can be understood in terms of their internal properties. Thus, a particular type of cell or organism studied today is expected to be much the same when studied by subsequent generations of biologists. However, this expectation is lost when we are asked to consider populations and communities over even moderate periods of time: changes on the time scale of tens of years are commonplace, often dramatic, and often caused by unpredictable events external to the study unit. Short-term changes are primarily numerical, but evolutionary changes, both adaptive (e.g., Reznick et al., 1997) and random (e.g., due to a population bottleneck), can accumulate rapidly. The stochastic models of ecology and population genetics include unpredictable environmental effects, allowing us to make probabilistic predictions that can be quite precise when we consider averages over large numbers of populations, large numbers of genes, or long periods of time.
KeywordsEffective Population Size Conservation Plan Effective Size Conservation Genetic Island Model
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bell, G., 1982, The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
- Franklin, I. R., 1980, Evolutionary changes in small populations, in: Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (M. E. Soulé and B. A. Wilcox, eds.), pp. 135–149, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Gilpin, M. E., and Soulé, M. E., 1986, Minimum viable populations: Processes of species extinctions, in: Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity (M. E. Soulé, ed.), pp. 19–34, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Hedrick, P. W., and Gilpin, M. E., 1996, Genetic effective size of a metapopulation, in: Metapopulation Dynamics: Ecology, Genetics, and Evolution (I. A. Hanski and M. E. Gilpin, eds.), pp. 165–181, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Lande, R., 1995a, Breeding plans for small populations based on the dynamics of quantitative trait variance, in: Population Management for Survival and Recovery (X D. Ballou, M. Gilpin, and T. J. Foose, eds.), pp. 318–340, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Lynch, M., 1994, Neutral models of phenotypic evolution, in: Ecological Genetics (L. A. Real, ed.), pp. 86–108, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- Lynch, M., 1996, A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues, in: Conservation Genetics: Case Histories from Nature (J. C. Avise, and J. L. Hamrick, eds.), pp. 471–501, Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
- Moore, J. A., 1984, Science as a way of knowing—Evolutionary Biology, Am. Zool. 24:467–534.Google Scholar
- Waser, N. M., 1993, Population structure, optimal outbreeding, and assortative mating in angiosperms, in: The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (N. W. Thornhill, ed.), pp. 173–199, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Wright, S., 1938, Size of population and breeding structure in relation to evolution, Science 87:430–431.Google Scholar