Evaluating the outcomes of genetic rescue attempts

Augmenting gene flow is a powerful tool for the conservation of small, isolated populations. However, genetic rescue attempts have largely been limited to populations at the brink of extinction, in part due to concerns over negative outcomes (e.g., outbreeding depression). Increasing habitat fragmentation may necessitate more proactive genetic management. Broader application of augmented gene flow will, in turn, require rigorous evaluation to increase confidence and identify pitfalls in this approach. To date, there has been no assessment of best monitoring practices for genetic rescue attempts. We used genomically explicit, individual-based simulations to examine the effectiveness of common approaches (i.e., tests for increases in fitness, migrant ancestry, heterozygosity, and abundance) for determining whether genetic rescue or outbreeding depression occurred. Statistical power to detect the effects of gene flow on fitness was high (≥0.8) when effect sizes were large, a finding consistent with those from previous studies on severely inbred populations. However, smaller effects of gene flow on fitness can appreciably affect persistence probability but current evaluation approaches fail to provide results from which reliable inferences can be drawn. The power of the metrics we examined to evaluate genetic rescue attempts depended on the time since gene flow and whether gene flow was beneficial or deleterious. Encouragingly, the use of multiple metrics provided nonredundant information and improved inference reliability, highlighting the importance of intensive monitoring efforts. Further development of best practices for evaluating genetic rescue attempts will be crucial for a responsible transition to increased use of translocations to decrease extinction risk.

Conservation practitioners' understanding of how to manage evolutionary processes

Both academics and practitioners consider a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory to be a general barrier to effectively managing genetic diversity. However, it is challenging to judge practitioners' level of understanding and how this influences their management decisions. Knowledge built through experience may be difficult for practitioners to articulate, but could nonetheless result in appropriate management strategies. To date, researchers have assessed only the explicit (formal) knowledge practitioners have of evolutionary concepts. To explore practitioners' understanding of evolutionary concepts, it is necessary to consider how they might apply explicit and implicit knowledge to their management decisions. Using an online survey, we asked Australian practitioners to respond to 2 common management scenarios in which there is strong evidence that managing genetic diversity can improve outcomes: managing small, isolated populations and sourcing seeds for restoration projects. In describing their approach to these scenarios, practitioners demonstrated a stronger understanding of the effective management of genetic diversity than the definitions of the relevant concepts. However, their management of genetic diversity within small populations was closer to best practice than for restoration projects. Moreover, the risks practitioners described in implementing best practice management were more likely to affect their approach to restoration than translocation projects. These findings provide evidence that strategies to build the capacity of practitioners to manage genetic diversity should focus on realistic management scenarios. Given that practitioners recognize the importance of adapting their practices and the strong evidence for the benefits of actively managing genetic diversity, there is hope that better engagement by evolutionary biologists with practitioners could facilitate significant shifts toward evolutionarily enlightened management.

Response variables for evaluation of the effectiveness of conservation corridors

Many studies have evaluated effectiveness of corridors by measuring species presence in and movement through small structural corridors. However, few studies have assessed whether these response variables are adequate for assessing whether the conservation goals of the corridors have been achieved or considered the costs or lag times involved in measuring the response variables. We examined 4 response variables-presence of the focal species in the corridor, interpatch movement via the corridor, gene flow, and patch occupancy--with respect to 3 criteria--relevance to conservation goals, lag time (fewest generations at which a positive response to the corridor might be evident with a particular variable), and the cost of a study when applying a particular variable. The presence variable had the least relevance to conservation goals, no lag time advantage compared with interpatch movement, and only a moderate cost advantage over interpatch movement or gene flow. Movement of individual animals between patches was the most appropriate response variable for a corridor intended to provide seasonal migration, but it was not an appropriate response variable for corridor dwellers, and for passage species it was only moderately relevant to the goals of gene flow, demographic rescue, and recolonization. Response variables related to gene flow provided a good trade-off among cost, relevance to conservation goals, and lag time. Nonetheless, the lag time of 10-20 generations means that evaluation of conservation corridors cannot occur until a few decades after a corridor has been established. Response variables related to occupancy were most relevant to conservation goals, but the lag time and costs to detect corridor effects on occupancy were much greater than the lag time and costs to detect corridor effects on gene flow.