Search for: All records

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. 

Abstract Researchers have long debated which estimator of relatedness best captures the degree of relationship between two individuals. In the genomics era, this debate continues, with relatedness estimates being sensitive to the methods used to generate markers, marker quality, and levels of diversity in sampled individuals. Here, we compare six commonly used genome‐based relatedness estimators (kinship genetic distance [KGD], Wang maximum likelihood [TrioML], Queller and Goodnight [R_xy], Kinship INference for Genome‐wide association studies [KING‐robust), and pairwise relatedness [R_AB], allele‐sharing coancestry [AS]) across five species bred in captivity–including three birds and two mammals–with varying degrees of reliable pedigree data, using reduced‐representation and whole genome resequencing data. Genome‐based relatedness estimates varied widely across estimators, sequencing methods, and species, yet the most consistent results for known first order relationships were found usingR_xy,R_AB, and AS. However, AS was found to be less consistently correlated with known pedigree relatedness than eitherR_xyorR_AB. Our combined results indicate there is not a single genome‐based estimator that is ideal across different species and data types. To determine the most appropriate genome‐based relatedness estimator for each new data set, we recommend assessing the relative: (1) correlation of candidate estimators with known relationships in the pedigree and (2) precision of candidate estimators with known first‐order relationships. These recommendations are broadly applicable to conservation breeding programmes, particularly where genome‐based estimates of relatedness can complement and complete poorly pedigreed populations. Given a growing interest in the application of wild pedigrees, our results are also applicable to in situ wildlife management.