Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 209, May 2017, Pages 130-136
Biological Conservation

Conservation genetics in the European Union – Biases, gaps and future directions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.020Get rights and content

Abstract

The importance of genetic diversity for the assessment and maintenance of biodiversity is widely recognised, although not yet explicitly incorporated into conservation decision making in many European Union Member States. A detailed assessment of 4311 genetic studies relevant for the conservation and management of European species revealed that research is extensive and, therefore, could be more effectively implemented in existing conservation programs. However, research was overly biased towards the study of species with an economic value or iconic status, with research on threatened species or species with undetermined conservation status being scarce. The largest volume of research focused on species identification and relationships, population subdivision and dispersal; with microsatellite and mtDNA sequences as the most widely used markers. These results emphasize the need for further collaboration between researchers and conservation stakeholders to devise genetics research programs that can provide effective solutions for species conservation in Europe.

Introduction

Europe is characterised by a rich biodiversity due to the different terrestrial and marine habitats it contains, and the large number of endemic species found in particular in the Mediterranean region, a global biodiversity hotspot (Cuttelod et al., 2008, Myers et al., 2000). As in many other regions of the world, Europe is facing a biodiversity crisis due to the different anthropogenic pressures that landscapes have been (and are being) subjected to (de Heer et al., 2005, Dullinger et al., 2013, EEA, 2015); with many species and habitats threatened or at risk of extinction (EEA, 2010). The protection and maintenance of biodiversity in Europe has been a matter of concern, with initial European Union (EU) environmental legislation in place since the 1970s and the establishment of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive since the early 1990s (European Commission, 1992). More recently, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 stands as an ambitious attempt to reverse biodiversity and ecosystem degradation trends (European Commission, 2011), with the aim of halting biodiversity loss in the current 28 EU Member States by 2020 and to protect biodiversity and ecosystems services by 2050 (European Commission, 2011).

Genetic diversity is crucial for the long-term survival of populations (and species) and their evolutionary potential (Frankel, 1974, Stockwell et al., 2003), and the application of genetics methods is now widely accepted in biodiversity assessments and conservation and management programs (Soulé and Wilcox, 1980, Soulé, 1985). The United States and Canada have pioneered the explicit incorporation of genetic information into conservation decision making via the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Endangered Species Act and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Species in Canada's guidelines. Furthermore, environment agencies from these countries, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Climate Canada, have set up dedicated conservation genetics laboratories and are at the forefront of the implementation of genetic and genomic techniques for wildlife management and environmental law enforcement (Haig et al., 2016). Such guidance and commitment to implement genetic techniques into wildlife management and conservation policy is still lacking elsewhere in the world, including Europe (Laikre, 2010, Laikre et al., 2010). The European Union Member States are currently addressing this with the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 where genetics is explicitly mentioned in Action 9 and 10 of Target 3 (Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity), and Action 20 in Target 6 (Help avert global biodiversity loss). Some of these actions emphasize the importance of conserving genetic resources in an socio-economic context, similar to the Aichi target 13 in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 (United Nations Environmental Programme, 2010), and only Action 20 in Target 6 includes the protection of genetic resources in wild species due to their pivotal role in the protection of global biodiversity.

The low impact of genetic and evolutionary biology studies on EU conservation programs or policies (Laikre, 2010, Santamaría and Méndez, 2012) has partly been attributed to the poor accessibility of scientific studies to stakeholders (Fuller et al., 2014, Hoban and Vernesi, 2012) and a lack of communication and collaboration between scientists and conservation practitioners (Lacy, 1988, Smith et al., 2009). However, a number of EU-funded initiatives have attempted to increase collaboration between academics and conservation stakeholders. These have included EUFORGEN (European Forest Genetic Resources Programme, euforgen.org), PGR Secure (Plant Genetic Resources Secure, pgrsecure.org), and ConGRESS (Conservation Genetic Resources for Effective Species Survival; congressgenetics.eu).

The ConGRESS project, in particular, has served as a platform for increasing communication and knowledge transfer between conservation geneticists and conservation practitioners across Europe (Hoban et al., 2013a). A key finding of the ConGRESS project was that within the policy and management community there was very limited knowledge of published genetics studies on European threatened taxa, and an assumption that relevant studies were lacking (Hoban et al., 2013a). Here, we present the first comprehensive assessment of conservation-relevant genetic studies in European species. The main aims of this study were to provide absolute measures and temporal patterns of i) the volume of conservation genetics research available for European species; ii) biases and gaps of research towards certain taxonomic groups or species with a particular conservation status; iii) the topics that conservation genetics research has focused on; iv) the use of different genetic markers; and v) the journals where the majority of conservation genetics research has been published.

Section snippets

Methods

Analyses were restricted to studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that were indexed in publication databases. Conservation or management organisations' reports, the so-called ‘grey literature’ were not included in this study, although these can include relevant genetic information (Haddaway and Bayliss, 2015). The scope of the assessment included research mainly conducted in the current 28 EU Member States, from 1992 until 2014. The following information was gathered from each

Taxonomic bias in genetic research

Genetic research was found to be biased towards certain taxonomic groups. In absolute number of studies, the most studied taxonomic groups were mammals and vascular plants, with 25% and 24% of the studies, respectively. Following these were arthropods (14%), fish (11%), birds (10%), molluscs (5%), reptiles (4%) and amphibians (3%). Only 9% of the studies were conducted in the remaining other 11 taxonomic groups analysed (Table S2). For the eight most studied taxonomic groups (listed above)

Conclusions

The achievement of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020's targets is vital if we are to protect Europe's biodiversity as well as to guarantee Europe's economy and the well-being of its society. Conservation genetics research can provide important insights for the protection and management of European species; however, the impact of genetic research on EU conservation programs and policies is still low despite the availability of genetic research for many taxa. An increased synergy between

Author contributions

Sílvia Pérez-Espona developed and populated the database, conducted all statistical analyses and wrote the manuscript. The ConGRESS consortium actively participated in the selection of variables to be included in the database, with special mention to Richard Nichols and Mike Bruford.

Competing financial interests

The authors declared no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

Will Goodall-Copestake, Richard Nichols and Mike Bruford are thanked for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Luke Crimes and Dominic Edwards are thanked for assistance with publication searches for the years 2012–2014. Cambridge Conservation Forum and the Cambridge Conservation Initiative are thanked for allowing Sílvia Pérez-Espona to use their office space at the David Attenborough Building while writing this manuscript. The ConGRESS project was funded by the EU Framework 7

References (65)

  • C.A. Stockwell et al.

    Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2003)
  • P. Sunnucks

    Efficient genetic markers for population biology

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2000)
  • A. Valentini et al.

    DNA barcoding for ecologists

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2009)
  • E.A. Alacs et al.

    DNA detective: a review of molecular approaches to wildlife forensics

    Forensic Sci. Med. Pathol.

    (2010)
  • APG III

    An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III

    Bot. J. Linn. Soc.

    (2009)
  • D. Bickford et al.

    Cryptic species as a window on diversity and conservation

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2007)
  • BirdLife International

    European Red List of Birds

    (2015)
  • T.M. Brooks et al.

    Why and How might Genetic and Phylogenetic Diversity Be Reflected in the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas?

    (2015)
  • J.A. Clark et al.

    Taxonomic bias in conservation research

    Science

    (2002)
  • A. Cuttelod et al.

    The Mediterranean: a biodiversity hotspot under threat

  • J.A. Darling et al.

    DNA-based methods for monitoring invasive species: a review and prospectus

    Biol. Invasions

    (2007)
  • M. de Heer et al.

    Biodiversity trends in Europe: development and testing of a species trend indicator for evaluating progress towards the 2010 target

    Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci.

    (2005)
  • R. DeSalle et al.

    The expansion of conservation genetics

    Nat. Rev. Genet.

    (2004)
  • S. Dullinger et al.

    Europe's other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future extinctions

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2013)
  • EEA

    EU 2010 biodiversity baseline. Post-2010 EU biodiversity policy

  • EEA

    The European Environment - State and Outlook 2015: Synthesis Report

    (2015)
  • European Commission

    Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020

  • European Commission

    Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the council on the conservation of wild birds

    Off. J. Eur. Union

    (2010)
  • European Commission

    Council Directive 92/43/EEC on 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

    Off. J. Eur. Communities

    (1992)
  • O.H. Frankel

    Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility

    Genetics

    (1974)
  • R. Frankham

    Conservation genetics

    Annu. Rev. Genet.

    (1995)
  • R.A. Fuller et al.

    Achieving open access to conservation science

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text