Conventional methods for enhancing connectivity in conservation planning do not always maintain gene flow

Protected area systems need to conserve species in places with suitable habitat that are configured to facilitate gene flow. Since genetic data require considerable resources to obtain, many proxy methods have been developed to generate plans for protected area systems (prioritizations) that facilitate gene flow without needing genetic data. However, the effectiveness of such methods—such as minimising fragmentation or enforcing contiguity among priority areas—remains largely untested. We investigated the ability of prioritizations to maintain gene flow when they are generated using conventional methods for promoting connectivity. Using existing environmental, genetic, and occurrence datasets, we created maps of habitat suitability and resistance to gene flow for nine alpine plant species. Next, we generated multispecies prioritizations that secured 10% of the suitable habitat for each species and attempted to maintain gene flow by (a) penalizing fragmentation, (b) representing species in contiguous areas of suitable habitat, and (c) representing species in contiguous areas with minimal resistance to gene flow as modelled from genetic data. We found that prioritizations generated using fragmentation penalties failed to represent seven of the nine species in areas that would maintain high levels of gene flow. Similarly, prioritizations that represented species in contiguous areas of suitable habitat were unable to maintain high levels of gene flow for six species—potentially because a few areas with high resistance can disrupt gene flow throughout an entire prioritization. Although prioritizations generated using genetic data successfully maintained gene flow, they also selected over three times more land than other prioritizations, suggesting that failing to account for gene flow when setting priorities may underestimate the scale of conservation action required. Synthesis and applications. We found that conventional methods for enhancing connectivity in conservation planning, such as spatially clustering priority areas or providing connected sections of suitable habitat, were generally unable to maintain high levels of gene flow. Our results suggest that conservation plans could be substantially improved by directly using genetic data, although whether this is a good choice for a particular situation will also depend on the costs of obtaining these data.

[1]  Niklaus E. Zimmermann,et al.  Relationships among levels of biodiversity and the relevance of intraspecific diversity in conservation - a project synopsis , 2008 .

[2]  A. Fujimoto,et al.  A Practical Genome Scan for Population-Specific Strong Selective Sweeps That Have Reached Fixation , 2007, PloS one.

[3]  Claire A. Montgomery,et al.  Trade‐offs and efficiencies in optimal budget‐constrained multispecies corridor networks , 2017, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[4]  P. Taberlet,et al.  History or ecology? Substrate type as a major driver of spatial genetic structure in Alpine plants. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[5]  H. Possingham,et al.  Hitting the target and missing the point: target‐based conservation planning in context , 2009 .

[6]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Preserving genetic connectivity in the European Alps protected area network , 2018 .

[7]  T. Dawson,et al.  Selecting thresholds of occurrence in the prediction of species distributions , 2005 .

[8]  E. Meineri,et al.  Modeling alpine plant distributions at the landscape scale: Do biotic interactions matter? , 2012 .

[9]  Janine Bolliger,et al.  How to make landscape genetics beneficial for conservation management? , 2014, Conservation Genetics.

[10]  A. Hoffmann,et al.  Climate change and evolutionary adaptation , 2011, Nature.

[11]  P. Schönswetter,et al.  Central Asian origin of and strong genetic differentiation among populations of the rare and disjunct Carex atrofusca (Cyperaceae) in the Alps , 2006 .

[12]  H. Possingham,et al.  Geographical surrogates of genetic variation for selecting island populations for conservation , 2014 .

[13]  R. D. Semlitsch,et al.  The influence of breeding phenology on the genetic structure of four pond‐breeding salamanders , 2017, Ecology and evolution.

[14]  T. Creech,et al.  Using network theory to prioritize management in a desert bighorn sheep metapopulation , 2014, Landscape Ecology.

[15]  P. Taberlet,et al.  Effects of species traits on the genetic diversity of high‐mountain plants: a multi‐species study across the Alps and the Carpathians , 2009 .

[16]  Yu-Huang Wang,et al.  Habitat suitability modelling to correlate gene flow with landscape connectivity , 2008, Landscape Ecology.

[17]  Brendan A. Wintle,et al.  The Boundary‐Quality Penalty: a Quantitative Method for Approximating Species Responses to Fragmentation in Reserve Selection , 2007, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[18]  F. Rovero,et al.  A novel landscape genetic approach demonstrates the effects of human disturbance on the Udzungwa red colobus monkey (Procolobus gordonorum) , 2015, Heredity.

[19]  G. Powell,et al.  Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on Earth , 2001 .

[20]  Zhian N. Kamvar,et al.  Poppr: an R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction , 2014, PeerJ.

[21]  L. S. Mills,et al.  Gene flow after inbreeding leads to higher survival in deer mice , 2005 .

[22]  K. Muller,et al.  An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Ana Domínguez,et al.  Estimating effective landscape distances and movement corridors: Comparison of habitat and genetic data , 2015 .

[24]  Hayri Önal,et al.  Optimal Selection of a Connected Reserve Network , 2006, Oper. Res..

[25]  Santiago Saura,et al.  A new habitat availability index to integrate connectivity in landscape conservation planning : Comparison with existing indices and application to a case study , 2007 .

[26]  E. Randi,et al.  Different habitat suitability models yield different least-cost path distances for landscape genetic analysis , 2016 .

[27]  J. L. Parra,et al.  Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas , 2005 .

[28]  Juan J. Armesto,et al.  COMMUNITY STUDIES IN POLLINATION ECOLOGY IN THE HIGH TEMPERATE ANDES OF CENTRAL CHILE. I. POLLINATION MECHANISMS AND ALTITUDINAL VARIATION , 1982 .

[29]  Pascal O. Title,et al.  ENVIREM: An expanded set of bioclimatic and topographic variables increases flexibility and improves performance of ecological niche modeling , 2016, bioRxiv.

[30]  S. Cushman,et al.  Spurious correlations and inference in landscape genetics , 2010, Molecular ecology.

[31]  Peter Rothery,et al.  Confidence limits for regression relationships between distance matrices: Estimating gene flow with distance , 2002 .

[32]  Christoph Häuser,et al.  EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY IN BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE, CONSERVATION, AND POLICY: A CALL TO ACTION , 2010, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[33]  Peter H. Singleton,et al.  Focal species and landscape “naturalness” corridor models offer complementary approaches for connectivity conservation planning , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[34]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming , 2016 .

[35]  Hayri Önal,et al.  Optimal design of compact and connected nature reserves for multiple species , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[36]  G. Kudo,et al.  Landscape genetics of alpine-snowbed plants: comparisons along geographic and snowmelt gradients , 2004, Heredity.

[37]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  An upgraded reserve selection algorithm , 1993 .

[38]  Robert A. Boria,et al.  ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models , 2014 .

[39]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Genetic diversity in widespread species is not congruent with species richness in alpine plant communities. , 2012, Ecology letters.

[40]  R. Fuller,et al.  Environmental and geographic variables are effective surrogates for genetic variation in conservation planning , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Paul Beier,et al.  Estimating landscape resistance from habitat suitability: effects of data source and nonlinearities , 2016, Landscape Ecology.

[42]  William E. Peterman,et al.  ResistanceGA: An R package for the optimization of resistance surfaces using genetic algorithms , 2014, bioRxiv.

[43]  S. Spear,et al.  Navigating the pitfalls and promise of landscape genetics , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[44]  N. Ellstrand Is gene flow the most important evolutionary force in plants? , 2014, American journal of botany.

[45]  M. Whitlock,et al.  Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST≠1/(4Nm+1) , 1999, Heredity.

[46]  Jeffrey O Hanson,et al.  Dealing with uncertainty in landscape genetic resistance models: a case of three co‐occurring marsupials , 2016, Molecular ecology.

[47]  Jacob van Etten,et al.  R package gdistance: distances and routes on geographical grids (version 1.1-4) , 2012 .

[48]  Stéphanie Manel,et al.  Ten years of landscape genetics. , 2013, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[49]  S. Cushman,et al.  A comparative framework to infer landscape effects on population genetic structure: are habitat suitability models effective in explaining gene flow? , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[50]  O. Gaggiotti,et al.  Ecology and life history affect different aspects of the population structure of 27 high‐alpine plants , 2011, Molecular ecology.

[51]  J. Watson,et al.  The performance and potential of protected areas , 2014, Nature.

[52]  J. Orestes Cerdeira,et al.  Species specific connectivity in reserve-network design using graphs , 2010 .