Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genetic consequences of ecological reserve design guidelines: An empirical investigation

  • Published:
Conservation Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We assessed the geneticdiversity consequences of applying ecologicalreserve design guidelines to four federally-listedglobally-rare plant species. Consequences weremeasured using two metrics: proportion of allalleles and of common alleles included inreserves. Common alleles were defined as those alleleshaving a frequency of ≥0.05 in at least onepopulation. Four conservation professionalsapplied ecological reserve guidelines to choosespecific populations of each species forinclusion in reserves of size 1 to N − 1, whereN is the total number of populations of each species.Information regarding genetic diversity was notused in selecting populations. The resulting reservedesigns were compared to random designs, andthe agreement among experts was assessed usingKendall's coefficient of concordance.Application of ecological reserve design guidelines provedmostly ineffective in capturing more geneticdiversity than is captured selectingpopulations randomly. Meeting establishedtargets for genetic diversity, such as one advocated by theCenter for Plant Conservation, required largernumbers of populations than are suggested to besufficient. Relative performance of expertdesigns differed among species and wasdependent on whether the proportion of allalleles or of common alleles was used as a measure ofdiversity. Furthermore there was no significantconcordance among experts in order in whichpopulations were incorporated into reserves asexperts differed in priority they placed onindividual guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin MP, Margules CR (1986) Assessing representativeness. In: Wildlife Conservation Evaluation (ed. Usher MB), pp. 45-67. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett SCH, Kohn JR (1991) Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: Implications for conservation. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE), pp. 3-30. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedward M, Pressey RL, Keith DA (1992) A new approach for selecting fully representative reserve networks: Addressing efficiency, reserve design and land suitability with an iterative analysis. Biol. Conserv., 62, 115-125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AHD, Briggs JD (1991) Sampling strategies for genetic variation in ex situ collections of endangered plant species. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE), pp. 99-119. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, Possingham HP, Lynch AJJ, Keith DA, McCarthy MA, Hopper SD, Drury WL, Passioura JA, Devries RJ (2001) A method for setting the size of plant conservation target areas. Conserv. Biol., 15, 603-616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Plant Conservation (1991) Genetic sampling guidelines for conservation collections of endangered plants. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE), pp. 225-238. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceska JF, Affolter JM, Hamrick JC (1997) Developing a sampling strategy for Baptisia arachnifera based on allozyme diversity. Conserv. Biol., 11, 1133-1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Desmet PG, Ellis AG (1999) From representation to persistence: Requirements for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the speciesrich mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Diversity Distrib., 5, 51-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csuti B, Polasky S, Williams PH, Pressey RL, Camm JD, Kershaw M, Kiester AR, Downs B, Hamilton R, Huso M, Sahr K (1997) A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Conserv., 80, 83-97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels RE, Raybould AF, Farkas JM (1997) Conserving genetic variation in British populations of Lobelia ureus. Biol. Conserv., 79, 15-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond JM (1975) The island dilemma: Lessons of modern biogeographic studies for the design of natural reserves. Biol. Conserv., 7, 129-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy DC, Boggs K, Hagenstein RH, Lipkin R, Michaelson JA (1999) Landscape assessment of the degree of protection of Alaska's terrestrial biodiversity. Conserv. Biol., 13, 1332-1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size: Implications for plant conservation. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 24, 217-242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk DA (1991) Joining biological and economic models for conserving plant genetic resources. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE), pp. 209-223. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk DA (1992) From conservation biology to conservation practice: Strategies for protecting plant diversity. In: Conservation Biology: Theory and Practice of Nature Conservation and Management (eds. Fiedler PL, Jain SK), pp. 396-431. Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonella MP, Neel M(1995) Characterization of rare plant habitat for restoration in the San Bernardino National Forest. In: Proceedings: Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium (eds. Roundy BA, McArther ED, Haley JS, Mann DK), pp. 81-93. General Technical Report INT-GTR-315. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haig SM, Bowman R, Mullins TD (1996) Population structure of red-cockaded woodpeckers in south Florida: RAPDS revisited. Mol. Ecol., 5, 725-734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Miller K, McNeely J (1984) The world coverage of protected areas: Development goals and environmental needs. In: National Parks, Conservation and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society (eds. McNeely JA, Miller KR), pp. 24-33. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger KE, Gottlieb LD (1991) Conservation of rare and endangered plants: Principles and prospects. In: Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants (eds. Falk DA, Holsinger KE), pp. 149-170. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger KE, Vitt P (1997) The future of conservation biology: What's a geneticist to do? In: Enhancing the Ecological Basis of Conservation: Heterogenetiy, Ecosystem Function, and Biodiversity (eds. Pickett STA, Ostfeld RS, Shachak M, Likens GE), pp. 206-216. Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kark S, Alkan PU, Safriel UN, Raude (1999) Conservation priorities for Chuka Partridge in Israel based on genetic diversity across an ecological gradient. Conserv. Biol., 13, 542-552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiester AR, Scott JM, Csuti B, Noss RF, Butterfield B, Sahr K, White D (1996) Conservation prioritization using GAP data. Conserv. Biol., 10, 1332-1342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R (1988) Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science, 241, 1455-1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis PO, Zaykin D (2001) Genetic data analysis: computer program for the analysis of allelic data. Version 1.0 (d16c). Available from http://alleyn.eeb.uconn.edu/gda/.

  • Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405, 243-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall DR, Brown AHD (1975) Optimum sampling strategies in genetic conservation. In: Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow (eds. Frankel OH, Hawkes JH), pp. 3-80. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milligan BG, Leebens-Mack J, Strand AE (1994) Conservation genetics: Beyond the maintenance of marker diversity. Mol. Ecol., 3, 423-435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murcia C (1995) Edge effects in fragmented forests, implications for conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 10, 58-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy DD, Noon BR (1992) Integrating scientific methods with habitat conservation planning: Reserve design for northern spotted owls. Ecol. Appl., 2, 3-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namkoong G (1993) A gene conservation plan for loblolly pine. Can. J. For. Res., 27, 433-437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nantel, P, Bouchard A, Brouillet L, Hay S (1998) Selection of areas for protecting rare plants with integration of land use conflicts: A case study for the west coast of Newfoundland, Canada. Conserv. Biol., 84, 223-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC (2000) The Structure of Diversity: Implications for Reserve Design. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Riverside, USA.

  • Neel MC, Cummings MP (2003) Effectiveness of conservation targets in capturing genetic diversity. Conserv. Biol., 17, 219-229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC, Ellstrand NC (2001) Patterns of allozyme diversity in the threatened plant Erigeron parishii (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot., 88, 810-818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neel MC, Ellstrand NC (2003) Conservation of genetic diversity in the endangered plant Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum (Polygonaceae). Conserv. Genet.

  • Newman D, Pilson D (1997) Increased probability of extinction due to decreased genetic effective population size: Experimental populations of Clarkia pulchella. Evolution, 51, 354-362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1983) A regional landscape approach to maintaining diversity. BioSci., 33, 700-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1987) From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: A look at The Nature Conservancy. Biol. Conserv., 41, 11-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF (1996) Protected areas: How much is enough? In: National Parks and Protected Areas (ed. Wright GR), pp. 91-120. Blackwell Science, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noss RF, O'Connell MA, Murphy D (1997) The Science of Conservation Planning: Habitat Conservation under the Endangered Species Act. Covelo, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Foppen R, Reijnan R, Schotman A (1994) The landscape ecological approach in bird conservation: Integrating the metapopulation concept into spatial planning. Ibis, 137, S139-S146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O (1998) Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv. Biol., 12, 844-855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiani KA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: Functional sites, landscapes and networks. BioSci., 50, 133-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressey RL, Nicholls AO (1989) Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches. Biol. Conserv., 50, 199-218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Tratt R, Wheeler BD, Gaston KJ (1999) The performance of existing networks of conservation areas in representing biodiversity. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 266, 1453-1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sætersdal M, Birks HJB (1993) Assessing the representativeness of nature reserves using multivariate analysis: Vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous forests, western Norway. Biol. Conserv., 65, 121-132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sætersdal M, Line JM, Birks HJB (1993) How to maximize biological diversity in nature reserve selection: Vascular plants and breeding birds in deciduous woodlands, western Norway. Biol. Conserv., 66, 131-138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schemske DW, Husband BC, Ruckelshaus MH, Goodwillie C, Parker IM, Bishop JG (1994) Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology, 75, 584-606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoen DJ, Brown AHD (1993) Conservation of allelic richness in wild crop relatives is aided by assessment of genetic markers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 90, 10623-10627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis F, Csuti B, Noss R, Butterfield B, Groves C, Anderson H, Caicco S, D'Erchia F, Edwards Jr. TC, Ulliman J, Wright RG (1993) GAP analysis: A geographic approach to protection of biological diversity. Wildlife Monogr., 123, 1-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JM, Davis FW, McGhie G, Wright RG, Groves C, Estes J (2001) Nature reserves: Do they capture the full range of America's biological diversity? 11, 909-1007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaanker RU, Ganeshaiah KN (1997) Mapping genetic diversity of Pyllanthus emblica: Forest gene banks as a new approach for in situ conservation of genetic resources. Current Science, 73, 163-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (1988) The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 19, 473-511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D, Abele LG (1982) Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: Effects of fragmentation. Am. Nat., 120, 41-50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME, Sanjayan MA (1998) Conservation targets: Do they help? Science, 279, 2060-2061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME, Simberloff D (1986) What do genetics and ecology tell us about the design of nature reserves? Biol. Conserv., 35, 19-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé ME, Terborgh J (eds.) (1999) Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey PB, Taper M (1992) Environmental variation and the persistence of small populations. Ecol. Appl., 2, 18-29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storfer A (1996) Quantitative genetics: A promising approach for the assessment of genetic variation in endangered species. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 343-348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Templeton AR, Shaw K, Routman E, Davis SK (1990) The genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard., 77, 13-27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JN (1996) Evolutionary ecology and the conservation of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol., 11, 300-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1994) Final Rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Five plants from the San Bernardino Mountains in southern California determined to be threatened or endangered. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register, 59, 43652-43664.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521-1024, U.S.A

    Maile C. Neel

  2. Marine Biological Laboratory, The Josephine Bay Paul Center for Comparative Molecular Biology and Evolution, 7 MBL Street, Woods, Hole, MA, 02543-1015, U.S.A

    Michael P. Cummings

Authors
  1. Maile C. Neel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael P. Cummings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maile C. Neel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neel, M.C., Cummings, M.P. Genetic consequences of ecological reserve design guidelines: An empirical investigation. Conservation Genetics 4, 427–439 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024758929728

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024758929728

Search

Navigation