Genetic rescue remains underused for aiding recovery of federally listed vertebrates in the United States

Restoring gene flow among fragmented populations is discussed as a potentially powerful management strategy that could reduce inbreeding depression and cause genetic rescue. Yet, examples of assisted migration for genetic rescue remain sparse in conservation, prompting several outspoken calls for its increased use in genetic management of fragmented populations. We set out to evaluate the extent to which this strategy is underused and to determine how many imperiled species would realistically stand to benefit from genetic rescue, focusing on federally threatened or endangered vertebrate species in the United States. We developed a "genetic rescue suitability index (GR index)" based on concerns about small population problems relative to risks associated with outbreeding depression and surveyed the literature for 222 species. We found that two-thirds of these species were good candidates for consideration of assisted migration for the purpose of genetic rescue according to our suitability index. Good candidate species spanned all taxonomic groups and geographic regions, though species with more missing data tended to score lower on the suitability index. While we do not recommend a prescriptive interpretation of our GR index, we used it here to establish that assisted migration for genetic rescue is an underused strategy. For example, we found in total, "genetic rescue" was only mentioned in 11 recovery plans and has only been implemented in 3 of the species we surveyed. A potential way forward for implementation of this strategy is incorporating genetic rescue as a priority in USFWS recovery documentation. In general, our results suggest that although not appropriate for all imperiled species, many more species stand to benefit from a conservation strategy of assisted migration for genetic rescue than those for which it has previously been considered or implemented.

[1]  I. Debski,et al.  Predicting harvest impact and establishment success when translocating highly mobile and endangered species , 2022, Journal of Applied Ecology.

[2]  G. Bertorelle,et al.  Genetic load: genomic estimates and applications in non-model animals , 2022, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[3]  A. Weeks,et al.  Conservation genetics as a management tool: The five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  D. Lindenmayer,et al.  Conservation translocations for amphibian species threatened by chytrid fungus: A review, conceptual framework, and recommendations , 2021, Conservation Science and Practice.

[5]  P. Hedrick,et al.  The crucial role of genome-wide genetic variation in conservation , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  T. Near,et al.  Genomic and phenotypic divergence informs translocation strategies for an endangered freshwater fish , 2021, Molecular ecology.

[7]  A. Weeks,et al.  Genetic mixing for population management: From genetic rescue to provenancing , 2020, Evolutionary applications.

[8]  R. Frankham,et al.  Genetic rescue: A critique of the evidence supports maximizing genetic diversity rather than minimizing the introduction of putatively harmful genetic variation , 2020 .

[9]  G. Luikart,et al.  Evaluating the outcomes of genetic rescue attempts , 2020, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[10]  Gideon S. Bradburd,et al.  Genomic and Fitness Consequences of Genetic Rescue in Wild Populations , 2019, Current Biology.

[11]  F. Allendorf,et al.  The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue. , 2019, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[12]  A. Ives,et al.  Inbreeding reduces long-term growth of Alpine ibex populations , 2019, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[13]  D. Blumstein,et al.  Conservation translocations: a review of common difficulties and promising directions , 2019, Animal Conservation.

[14]  G. Athrey,et al.  Response to Selection for Increased Heat Tolerance in a Small Fish Species, With the Response Decreased by a Population Bottleneck , 2019, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[15]  W. Funk,et al.  Genomics for Genetic Rescue , 2019, Population Genomics.

[16]  W. Funk,et al.  An experimental test of alternative population augmentation scenarios , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[17]  A. Young,et al.  Genetic rescue in a plant polyploid complex: Case study on the importance of genetic and trait data for conservation management , 2018, Ecology and evolution.

[18]  J. Wallén,et al.  Genetic rescue in an inbred Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) population , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Call for a Paradigm Shift in the Genetic Management of Fragmented Populations , 2018 .

[20]  Jennifer A. Szymanski,et al.  Development of a Species Status Assessment Process for Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act , 2018 .

[21]  A. Weeks,et al.  Genetic rescue increases fitness and aids rapid recovery of an endangered marsupial population , 2017, Nature Communications.

[22]  B. Letcher,et al.  Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout , 2017, Molecular ecology.

[23]  R. Dirzo,et al.  Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  H. Taylor,et al.  Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners , 2017 .

[25]  L. Angeloni,et al.  Testing the demographic effects of divergent immigrants on small populations of Trinidadian guppies , 2017 .

[26]  P. Hedrick,et al.  Understanding Inbreeding Depression, Purging, and Genetic Rescue. , 2016, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[27]  R. Frankham.  Genetic rescue benefits persist to at least the F3 generation, based on a meta-analysis , 2016 .

[28]  D. Reznick,et al.  Gene flow from an adaptively divergent source causes rescue through genetic and demographic factors in two wild populations of Trinidadian guppies , 2016, Evolutionary applications.

[29]  C. Richards,et al.  Three types of rescue can avert extinction in a changing environment , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Christy L. McGuire,et al.  Threat evolution: negative feedbacks between management action and species recovery in threatened trout (Salmonidae) , 2015, Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

[31]  R. Frankham.  Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. , 2015, Molecular ecology.

[32]  D. Tallmon,et al.  Genetic rescue to the rescue. , 2015, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[33]  T. Johnson,et al.  Effects of genetic management on reproduction, growth, and survival in captive endangered pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) , 2013, Journal of mammalogy.

[34]  M. Whitlock,et al.  Assisted Gene Flow to Facilitate Local Adaptation to Climate Change , 2013 .

[35]  D. Field,et al.  Source population characteristics affect heterosis following genetic rescue of fragmented plant populations , 2013, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[36]  D. Coltman,et al.  Genomic consequences of genetic rescue in an insular population of bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) , 2012, Molecular ecology.

[37]  Valerie Kapos,et al.  Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research , 2012 .

[38]  V. Loeschcke,et al.  Genetic erosion impedes adaptive responses to stressful environments , 2011, Evolutionary applications.

[39]  R. Frankham,et al.  Assessing the benefits and risks of translocations in changing environments: a genetic perspective , 2011, Evolutionary applications.

[40]  Michele R. Dudash,et al.  Predicting the Probability of Outbreeding Depression , 2011, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[41]  G. Luikart,et al.  Genomics and the future of conservation genetics , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[42]  S. O’Brien,et al.  Genetic Restoration of the Florida Panther , 2010, Science.

[43]  B. Kuhajda,et al.  Guidelines for Propagation and Translocation for Freshwater Fish Conservation , 2009 .

[44]  David J. Hosken,et al.  Inbreeding, inbreeding depression and extinction , 2008, Conservation Genetics.

[45]  Liana N. Joseph,et al.  See Blockindiscussions, Blockinstats, Blockinand Blockinauthor Blockinprofiles Blockinfor Blockinthis Blockinpublication Evolutionary Blockinresponses Blockinto Blockinclimate Blockinchange , 2022 .

[46]  M. Fischer,et al.  Genetic rescue persists beyond first-generation outbreeding in small populations of a rare plant , 2007, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[47]  S. Edmands.  Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[48]  R. Mayden,et al.  Conservation Genetics of an Imperiled Riverine Fish from Eastern North America, the Blotchside Logperch, Percina Burtoni (Teleostei: Percidae) , 2006, Copeia.

[49]  G. Luikart,et al.  Genetic rescue of an insular population of large mammals , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  C. Vilas,et al.  Relative Contribution of Inbreeding Depression and Eroded Adaptive Diversity to Extinction Risk in Small Populations of Shore Campion , 2006, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[51]  R. Frankham.  Genetics and extinction , 2005 .

[52]  Gordon Luikart,et al.  The alluring simplicity and complex reality of genetic rescue. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[53]  S. Comber,et al.  Polyploidy in fishes: patterns and processes , 2004 .

[54]  T. Lennartsson.  Extinction thresholds and disrupted plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented plant populations , 2002 .

[55]  W. Fagan,et al.  A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT RECOVERY PLANS , 2002 .

[56]  L. Keller,et al.  Inbreeding effects in wild populations. , 2002 .

[57]  J. Bundgaard,et al.  Does inbreeding affect the extinction risk of small populations?: predictions from Drosophila , 2000 .

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

[59]  J. L. Bouzat,et al.  Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population , 1998, Science.

[60]  I. Hanski,et al.  Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation , 1998, Nature.

[61]  Dara Newman,et al.  INCREASED PROBABILITY OF EXTINCTION DUE TO DECREASED GENETIC EFFECTIVE POPULATION SIZE: EXPERIMENTAL POPULATIONS OF CLARKIA PULCHELLA , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[62]  A. Cunningham.  Disease Risks of Wildlife Translocations , 1996 .

[63]  M. Lynch,et al.  EVOLUTION AND EXTINCTION IN A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT: A QUANTITATIVE‐GENETIC ANALYSIS , 1995, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[64]  R. Lande.  Risks of Population Extinction from Demographic and Environmental Stochasticity and Random Catastrophes , 1993, The American Naturalist.

[65]  S. O’Brien,et al.  The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther , 1993, Current Biology.

[66]  W. Gabriel,et al.  Survival of small populations under demographic stochasticity. , 1992, Theoretical Population Biology.