Theory predicts the uneven distribution of genetic diversity within species

Global efforts to conserve species have been strongly influenced by the heterogeneous distribution of species diversity across the Earth. This is manifest in conservation efforts focused on diversity hotspots. The conservation of genetic diversity within an individual species is an important factor in its survival in the face of environmental changes and disease. Here we show that diversity within species is also distributed unevenly. Using simple genealogical models, we show that genetic distinctiveness has a scale-free power law distribution. This property implies that a disproportionate fraction of the diversity is concentrated in small sub-populations, even when the population is well-mixed. Small groups are of such importance to overall population diversity that even without extrinsic perturbations, there are large fluctuations in diversity owing to extinctions of these small groups. We also show that diversity can be geographically non-uniform—potentially including sharp boundaries between distantly related organisms—without extrinsic causes such as barriers to gene flow or past migration events. We obtained these results by studying the fundamental scaling properties of genealogical trees. Our theoretical results agree with field data from global samples of Pseudomonas bacteria. Contrary to previous studies, our results imply that diversity loss owing to severe extinction events is high, and focusing conservation efforts on highly distinctive groups can save much of the diversity.

[1]  G. Parker Sperm competition games: raffles and roles , 1990, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  A quantitative description of the copulatory behaviour of meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) , 1975, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  R M May,et al.  Extinction and the loss of evolutionary history. , 1997, Science.

[4]  G. A. Watterson Mutant substitutions at linked nucleotide sites , 1982, Advances in Applied Probability.

[5]  N. Pound Effects of morphine on electrically evoked contractions of the vas deferens in two congeneric rodent species differing in sperm competition intensity , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  R. Whittaker,et al.  The Refugial Debate , 2000, Science.

[7]  Daniel P. Faith,et al.  Genetic diversity and taxonomic priorities for conservation , 1994 .

[8]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Studies of sperm competition in two species of muroid rodents , 1981, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[9]  A. Pilastro,et al.  Individual adjustment of sperm expenditure accords with sperm competition theory , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[10]  R. P. Amann,et al.  Daily sperm production and epididymal sperm reserves of pubertal and adult rats. , 1978, Journal of reproduction and fertility.

[11]  A. Orihuela,et al.  Sexual behavior and semen characteristics of rams exposed to their own semen or semen from a different ram on the vulva of the ewe , 2001 .

[12]  C. Moritz Defining 'Evolutionarily Significant Units' for conservation. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[13]  R. Johnston,et al.  Meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus, use multiple sources of scent for sex recognition , 1995, Animal Behaviour.

[14]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Ejaculate Cost and Male Choice , 1982, The American Naturalist.

[15]  R. Boonstra,et al.  Mating system of the meadow vole, Microtus pennsylvanicus , 1993 .

[16]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Diversity and adaptation in rodent copulatory behavior , 1975, Science.

[17]  K. Gaston Global patterns in biodiversity , 2000, Nature.

[18]  N. Wedell,et al.  Butterflies tailor their ejaculate in response to sperm competition risk and intensity , 1999, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  R. Hudson Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. , 1990 .

[20]  G. A. Watterson On the number of segregating sites in genetical models without recombination. , 1975, Theoretical population biology.

[21]  Rory A. Fisher,et al.  XVII—The distribution of gene ratios for rare mutations , 1931 .

[22]  D. Irwin PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC BREAKS WITHOUT GEOGRAPHIC BARRIERS TO GENE FLOW , 2002, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[23]  Edwin H. Lowe,et al.  Do population size bottlenecks reduce evolutionary potential? , 1999 .

[24]  R. Crozier Preserving the Information Content of Species: Genetic Diversity, Phylogeny, and Conservation Worth , 1997 .

[25]  G. Hewitt The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages , 2000, Nature.

[26]  J. Ginsberg,et al.  Sperm competition in mammals. , 1989, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  John Wakeley,et al.  Gene genealogies when the sample size exceeds the effective size of the population. , 2003, Molecular biology and evolution.

[28]  John W. Taylor,et al.  Geographic Barriers Isolate Endemic Populations of Hyperthermophilic Archaea , 2003, Science.

[29]  M. Gage Risk of sperm competition directly affects ejaculate size in the Mediterranean fruit fly , 1991, Animal Behaviour.

[30]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[31]  N. Barton,et al.  Genealogies and geography. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[32]  G. Parker,et al.  Sperm competition, male prudence and sperm-limited females , 2002 .

[33]  Andrew Balmford,et al.  When does conservation genetics matter? , 2001, Heredity.

[34]  P. Dziuk Factors that influence the proportion of offspring sired by a male following heterospermic insemination , 1996 .

[35]  D. Foltz,et al.  Factors affecting the outcome of sperm competition in thirteen-lined ground squirrels , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[36]  T. Birkhead,et al.  Sophisticated sperm allocation in male fowl , 2003, Nature.

[37]  G. Parker,et al.  Sperm competition games: a prospective analysis of risk assessment , 1997, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[38]  P. Ehrlich,et al.  Biodiversity Studies: Science and Policy , 1991, Science.

[39]  D. Dewsbury,et al.  Patterns of Copulatory Behavior in Male Mammals , 1972, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[40]  J. Tiedje,et al.  Biogeography and Degree of Endemicity of Fluorescent Pseudomonas Strains in Soil , 2000, Applied and Environmental Microbiology.

[41]  B. Finlay Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species , 2002, Science.

[42]  M. Nei Molecular Evolutionary Genetics , 1987 .

[43]  M. Notohara The structured coalescent process with weak migration , 2001, Journal of Applied Probability.

[44]  J. Lawton,et al.  Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies , 1993, Nature.

[45]  Yaneer Bar-Yam Multiscale variety in complex systems: Research Articles , 2004 .

[46]  M. Ferkin,et al.  The Reproductive State of Female Voles Affects their Scent Marking Behavior and the Responses of Male Conspecifics to Such Marks , 2004 .

[47]  J. Wakeley,et al.  The coalescent in a continuous, finite, linear population. , 2002, Genetics.

[48]  R. R. Baker,et al.  Variation in Rat Ejaculates Consistent with the Kamikaze-Sperm Hypothesis , 1990 .

[49]  R. Cann Genetic Clues to Dispersal in Human Populations: Retracing the Past from the Present , 2001, Science.

[50]  S. Wright,et al.  Isolation by Distance. , 1943, Genetics.