Conservation genetics in the European Union – Biases, gaps and future directions
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)
- et al.
Rapid evolutionary dynamics and disease threats to biodiversity
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2003) - et al.
Science communication for biodiversity conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2012) Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2010)Genetics and conservation biology
C. R. Biol.
(2003)- et al.
Shades of grey: two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation
Biol. Conserv.
(2015) Conservation genetics: where are we now?
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2001)- et al.
Conservation genetic resources for effective species survival (ConGRESS): bridging the divide between conservation research and practice
J. Nat. Conserv.
(2013) - et al.
Microsatellites, from molecules to populations and back
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(1996) - et al.
SNPs in ecology, evolution and conservation
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2004) - et al.
Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2015)