Search for: All records

Abstract Global change is impacting biodiversity across all habitats on earth. New selection pressures from changing climatic conditions and other anthropogenic activities are creating heterogeneous ecological and evolutionary responses across many species' geographic ranges. Yet we currently lack standardised and reproducible tools to effectively predict the resulting patterns in species vulnerability to declines or range changes.We developed an informatic toolbox that integrates ecological, environmental and genomic data and analyses (environmental dissimilarity, species distribution models, landscape connectivity, neutral and adaptive genetic diversity, genotype‐environment associations and genomic offset) to estimate population vulnerability. In our toolbox, functions and data structures are coded in a standardised way so that it is applicable to any species or geographic region where appropriate data are available, for example individual or population sampling and genomic datasets (e.g. RAD‐seq, ddRAD‐seq, whole genome sequencing data) representing environmental variation across the species geographic range.To demonstrate multi‐species applicability, we apply our toolbox to three georeferenced genomic datasets for co‐occurring East African spiny reed frogs (Afrixalus fornasini, A. delicatusandA. sylvaticus) to predict their population vulnerability, as well as demonstrating that range loss projections based on adaptive variation can be accurately reproduced from a previous study using data for two European bat species (Myotis escaleraiandM. crypticus).Our framework sets the stage for large scale, multi‐species genomic datasets to be leveraged in a novel climate change vulnerability framework to quantify intraspecific differences in genetic diversity, local adaptation, range shifts and population vulnerability based on exposure, sensitivity and landscape barriers. 

Abstract Adaptive plasticity in thermal tolerance traits may buffer organisms against changing temperatures, making such responses of particular interest in the face of global climate change. Although population variation is integral to the evolvability of this trait, many studies inferring proxies of physiological vulnerability from thermal tolerance traits extrapolate data from one or a few populations to represent the species. Estimates of physiological vulnerability can be further complicated by methodological effects associated with experimental design. We evaluated how populations varied in their acclimation capacity (i.e., the magnitude of plasticity) for critical thermal maximum (CTmax) in two species of tailed frogs (Ascaphidae), cold‐stream specialists. We used the estimates of acclimation capacity to infer physiological vulnerability to future warming. We performed CTmax experiments on tadpoles from 14 populations using a fully factorial experimental design of two holding temperatures (8 and 15°C) and two experimental starting temperatures (8 and 15°C). This design allowed us to investigate the acute effects of transferring organisms from one holding temperature to a different experimental starting temperature, as well as fully acclimated responses by using the same holding and starting temperature. We found that most populations exhibited beneficial acclimation, where CTmax was higher in tadpoles held at a warmer temperature, but populations varied markedly in the magnitude of the response and the inferred physiological vulnerability to future warming. We also found that the response of transferring organisms to different starting temperatures varied substantially among populations, although accounting for acute effects did not greatly alter estimates of physiological vulnerability at the species level or for most populations. These results underscore the importance of sampling widely among populations when inferring physiological vulnerability, as population variation in acclimation capacity and thermal sensitivity may be critical when assessing vulnerability to future warming. 

In late December 1973, the United States enacted what some would come to call “the pitbull of environmental laws.” In the 50 years since, the formidable regulatory teeth of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been credited with considerable successes, obliging agencies to draw upon the best available science to protect species and habitats. Yet human pressures continue to push the planet toward extinctions on a massive scale. With that prospect looming, and with scientific understanding ever changing,Scienceinvited experts to discuss how the ESA has evolved and what its future might hold.—Brad Wible 

In late December 1973, the United States enacted what some would come to call “the pitbull of environmental laws.” In the 50 years since, the formidable regulatory teeth of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) have been credited with considerable successes, obliging agencies to draw upon the best available science to protect species and habitats. Yet human pressures continue to push the planet toward extinctions on a massive scale. With that prospect looming, and with scientific understanding ever changing, Science invited experts to discuss how the ESA has evolved and what its future might hold. 

Under the recently adopted Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 196 Parties committed to reporting the status of genetic diversity for all species. To facilitate reporting, three genetic diversity indicators were developed, two of which focus on processes contributing to genetic diversity conservation: maintaining genetically distinct populations and ensuring populations are large enough to maintain genetic diversity. The major advantage of these indicators is that they can be estimated with or without DNA‐based data. However, demonstrating their feasibility requires addressing the methodological challenges of using data gathered from diverse sources, across diverse taxonomic groups, and for countries of varying socio‐economic status and biodiversity levels. Here, we assess the genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations across nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. Eighty‐three percent of the taxa assessed had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Our results show that although the majority of species maintain most populations, 58% of species have populations too small to maintain genetic diversity. Moreover, genetic indicator values suggest that IUCN Red List status and other initiatives fail to assess genetic status, highlighting the critical importance of genetic indicators.