Abstract
This chapter introduces a new perspective to the field of conservation genetics, driven by recent advancements in genomic technologies. It begins with a brief historical overview of the discipline and a discussion of its focus on neotropical species and populations, followed by a discussion on how molecular phylogenetic diversity, comparative phylogeography, and the use of environmental as well as invertebrate-derived DNA have opened up new avenues for the conservation of living communities. This chapter indicates that, despite the many achievements of the past decades, critical questions related to selectively important genetic variation and genotype-environmental interactions are still challenging conservation geneticists. The effective use of conservation genetics and genomics information for the planning, implementation and management of conservation practices by the decision-makers is also an important challenge in the Neotropics.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
It has been more than a century since genetics was first used to interpret an ecological response, when a mutant gene was reported to have been selectively eliminated by predation in caterpillars (Gerould 1921), thus founding what would later become known as ecological genetics. This discipline is defined by the study of the genetic bases of an organism’s adaptation, i.e., the adaptations of wild populations to their environment (Ford 1964). Since then, genetics, evolution, ecology and conservation have been continuously intertwined, motivating many researchers to think about new challenges and propose new disciplines. Thus, the last ten decades have been a period of great transformation of our knowledge about all kinds of living organisms and their persistence on Earth. However, human activities have led to severe changes on our planet, resulting in a rapid loss of species and populations, and characterizing a true global biodiversity crisis (Bellard et al. 2012; Dirzo et al. 2014; Haddad et al. 2015). Many efforts have been made to mitigate the impacts of human activities on biodiversity, as it is a well-established fact that genetic diversity plays a crucial role in the long-term persistence of species and populations (Hoban et al. 2023). Therefore, the use of genetics can provide important information and emerge as a powerful tool for conservation and effective decision-making (Torres-Florez et al. 2018).
In this scenario, conservation genetics emerged as an application of genetics in the scope of biological conservation, which later became a multidisciplinary field of study marked by the perception that the disorderly growth of human activities has a huge impact and jeopardizes local and global biodiversity. The birth of conservation genetics dates back to the early 1970s, with the papers of Sir Otto Frankel (Frankel 1970; Frankel 1974), a plant geneticist who first recognized the genetic importance for conservation. In the emblematic book Conservation and Evolution, Frankel and Soulé (1981) presented genetic problems associated with conservation, explored the meaning of genetic diversity for the maintenance of populations and ecosystems, and highlighted principles and practices of conservation genetics for the long-term conservation of nature. This established the foundations of conservation genetics. Later, Frankham et al. (2002) defined conservation genetics as a discipline that uses theoretical and methodological approaches of genetics to save species and populations facing the risk of extinction. A central idea in conservation genetics is that small, isolated populations can be threatened by the occurrence of random genetic drift and inbreeding (Ouborg et al. 2010). Genetic drift, defined as the random fluctuation of allele frequencies across generations, can lead to the random loss or fixation of alleles when it occurs in small populations. This can result in the loss of adaptive alleles, or in the fixation of deleterious alleles. Inbreeding, on the other hand, increases the frequency of homozygotes, which can expose deleterious alleles and lead to inbreeding depression, i.e., a reduction in individual fitness on average. Although both genetic drift and inbreeding can occur in large populations, their effects are much more pronounced in small populations, and at least three important consequences can result from these effects. In small, inbred populations, the reduction of individual fitness can decrease their viability in the short term. In addition, the loss of genetic variants in a small population can compromise its evolutionary adaptive potential, and reduce its long-term viability in a changing environment. Finally, genetic drift, independently occurring in small and isolated populations, may promote genetic divergence between them, compromising the genetic unity of the species. This may also lead to outbreeding depression, if the gene flow between the groups is restored (Frankham et al. 2017; Frankham et al. 2002).
The increasing development of molecular technologies has allowed researchers to evaluate these theoretical effects on small populations and confirm conservation genetics as a well-established, empirical discipline. However, despite the great expansion of conservation genetics worldwide, it remains disproportionately understudied in the Neotropics. The Neotropics harbor a huge biodiversity, with endemic species which have been increasingly threatened by habitat degradation and wild population decline, which could lead to high rates of extinction in the future (Dirzo et al. 2014). Despite all this, between 1992 and 2014, publications on conservation genetics from Latin America featured almost ten times less frequently in indexed journals than those from European countries (Torres-Florez et al. 2018), and there is no reason to believe that this scenario has changed in recent years. Many factors may be causing this disproportionality, but it is clear that conservation genetics in the Neotropics has much to contribute to the conservation of this important biodiversity.
2 Conservation Genetics at the Species Level
Traditionally, conservation genetics has been focused on biological diversity at the species level, and, while its main goal is to save endangered species from the risk of extinction (Frankham et al. 2002), many studies published worldwide in the field of genetics applied to conservation have been targeting on non-threatened species (Torres-Florez et al. 2018). Genetics – applied to a species or its populations – has been utilized for a range of general topics in biodiversity conservation, from resolving taxonomic uncertainties to the long-term monitoring of populations. Genetics has been employed around the world to assist in various aspects of conservation, such as defining evolutionary significant units (ESUs) and/or management units, minimizing inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity in populations, managing captive populations for reintroduction, assessing invasive species and their impacts on threatened species, estimating sex ratio, population size and demographic history, contributing to management plans and forensic actions, and predicting extinction risk and responses to environmental changes (Frankham et al. 2017; Torres-Florez et al. 2018); more recently, the use of genetics in conservation has been increasing in the Neotropics as well.
Fish, for instance, are among the most diverse groups of neotropical vertebrates, and present several taxonomic challenges. Morphologically similar species often form what is known as a species complex, in which species are virtually indistinguishable through their morphology or color patterns. In these cases, genetic tools, such as DNA barcoding (using the COI gene) or other molecular gene identification techniques, have revealed a significant hidden biodiversity (Pires et al. 2017; Ramírez et al. 2017a; Silva-Santos et al. 2018). Molecular analyses have been integrated with chromosome and morphology studies to describe new species (Garavello et al. 2021) or even entirely new genera (e.g., Megaleporinus, Ramírez et al. 2017b).
Indeed, there is no major living taxon that has not received some contribution from genetic investigations for the identification of hidden biodiversity, either by chromosomal analyses, molecular methods, or both. Metagenomics has revealed to science numerous new bacteria and archaebacteria, most of which are known only as Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) and have been deposited in public databases such as GenBank, but still require further biological characterization. Plants and animals have also benefited from the power of molecular tools to reveal their hidden biodiversity. Molecular phylogenies and species delimitation methods, as well as DNA barcoding, can be included in a growing body of methodologies which have proven to be useful in revealing hidden biodiversity in plants (Vijayan and Tsou 2010; Lima et al. 2018) and in most animal groups (Ahmed 2022; Fišer and Buzan 2014) all over the world, including the hyperdiverse Neotropics.
The number of genetic population studies that have contributed to the conservation of threatened species in the Neotropics has increased significantly. However, for various reasons, most studies are conducted on species of low conservation concern. In a world increasingly devastated and fragmented by human actions, reduced gene flow and the loss of genetic variation have been described in several populations of neotropical plants (Vitorino et al. 2020), fish (Machado et al. 2022), birds (Banhos et al. 2016), and mammals (Ayala-Burbano et al. 2017). Inbreeding in small populations has also been reported in fish (Langen et al. 2011; Coimbra et al. 2020), frogs (Nali et al. 2020), and mammals (Collevatti et al. 2007). It is worth noting that, until the last review in 2014, around 40% of the conservation genetic studies in Latin America had focused on population structure (Torres-Florez et al. 2018), highlighting the concern of researchers in clarifying the genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation. There is no reason to believe that this concern will diminish in the near future. While ESUs have been suggested in fish species such as Pseudoplatystoma corruscans, which has a wide distribution in various hydrographic basins (Carvalho et al. 2012), genetic analyses have recently been used to evaluate the translocation and reintroduction of a small endangered primate (Moraes et al. 2017), Leontopithecus rosalia, which was successfully done a few decades ago. Several other genetic studies have focused on ex situ populations, which can serve as an insurance policy for an endangered species by producing new individuals that can help in recovering wild populations at risk of extinction. However, ex situ populations are often comprised of a reduced number of individuals, and are prone to showing loss of genetic variation, inbreeding, and inbreeding depression, which have been investigated in primates (Ayala-Burbano et al. 2017, 2020), for instance, or hybridization, which has been investigated in birds (Costa et al. 2017).
Genetics applied to conservation has already made meaningful contributions to the knowledge of species and their populations, and it has shown great potential to help monitor and manage the in situ and ex situ populations of threatened species. Expanding these studies could lead to significant progress, particularly for the persistence of biodiversity in the hyperdiverse Neotropics.
3 Genetics for Studying Communities and Ecosystems
Biodiversity has long been recognized as encompassing not only the diversity of species, but also genetic and ecosystem diversity (Wilson 1988). While the primary goal of conservation genetics is to preserve endangered species and their genetic diversity, it is noteworthy how genetic and molecular tools can also aid in the conservation of communities and ecosystems, such as in identifying priority areas for community conservation. At least three important approaches – phylogenetic diversity, comparative phylogeography, and environmental DNA – can illustrate the powerful use of genetics and molecular information to contribute for a better understanding of structures and functions of the biological diversity present in diverse ecosystems.
3.1 Phylogenetic Diversity
Phylogenetic diversity (PD) was introduced by Faith (1992) to address the goal of conserving biodiversity at the environmental or community levels, rather than just assessing biodiversity at the species level. There are various metrics for estimating phylogenetic diversity, all of which are most frequently based on molecular data, making genetic information essential for these studies. The most commonly used metric, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (PDFaith) (Faith 1992), is based on cladistic information, i.e., it is the sum of the lengths of all branches in a molecular phylogenetic tree containing a set of taxa from the entire community. PD is strongly correlated with species richness (Tucker et al. 2017), whereas other metrics based on the average pairwise genetic distance of all species (MPD, Webb 2000), or on the average pairwise genetic distance between closely related species (MNTD, Webb et al. 2002), are less dependent on species richness. Higher MPD (Mean Pairwise Distance) values indicate that the assessed set of species in the community are from a wide range of clades, whereas a high MNTD (Mean Nearest Taxon Distance) suggests that closely related species do not co-occur in the community. Regardless of the metric used, a more complex and less redundant local community will show higher phylogenetic diversity, suggesting higher priority for the conservation of a broader biodiversity. In contrast, a local community showing lower phylogenetic diversity might indicate a local loss of species, and might be a measure of the impact of habitat loss.
Phylogenetic diversity has been assessed in several taxa in the Neotropics, such as in plants (Perea et al. 2022), bees (Antonini et al. 2017), birds (Hanz et al. 2019), and mammals (Gómez-Ortiz et al. 2017), but few studies have primarily focused on conservation. For example, PD was used to evaluate the impacts of habitat loss on the evolutionary diversity of snakes (Fenker et al. 2014), the effects of oil palm management on bird communities (Prescott et al. 2016), spatial variation in communities of Atlantic Forest opiliones (Nogueira et al. 2019), loss of phylogenetic diversity of bats across a habitat gradient in the Amazon (Aninta et al. 2019), the identification of areas of high mammalian phylogenetic diversity in order to suggest priority areas for conservation (Aguillar-Tomasini et al. 2021), and to guide the conservation of crop wild relatives (González-Orozco et al. 2021).
Indeed, by assessing biological diversity at the community level (Faith 1992), phylogenetic diversity can provide a good picture of the evolutionary history of communities, and how they might respond temporally and spatially to a range of stressors, such as habitat loss and fragmentation. Phylogenetic diversity can also be used to guide large-scale conservation approaches, particularly for protecting the megadiversity of the Neotropics.
3.2 Comparative Phylogeography
Phylogeography can be a powerful tool for conservation. This field of study, which aims at understanding the geographic arrangement of genotypes, was first proposed by Avise et al. (1987), and was rapidly recognized as an important approach for inferring population evolutionary history. Phylogeography focuses heavily on describing population relationships within a single species, and has been widely used to study almost all living groups. In plants and animals, phylogeography has revealed several cases of spatial genetic differentiation among populations, potentially contributing to the conservation of these populations. More information on this topic can be found in Chaps. 6 and 21.
With the expansion of these studies, comparative phylogeography (CP) emerged with the aim of understanding the evolutionary and biogeographical history of species that are co-distributed in space. In an integrative work, comparative phylogeography among resident vertebrates in the wet tropical rainforests identified genetically divergent areas important for conservation (Moritz and Faith 1998). The authors concluded that combining comparative phylogeography (population level) with phylogenetic diversity (species level) could improve biodiversity conservation planning. It is impressive to observe how much comparative phylogeography applied to conservation studies has advanced in the few decades since its birth. A quick search on Web of Science, using the terms “comparative phylogenetic*” AND “conservation”, revealed almost four hundred papers published from 1997 to 2023. In general, these works combined the phylogeographies of two or more co-distributed species to infer areas of highest priority for conservation. For instance, comparative phylogeography within a crustacean group (Excirolana) highlighted the importance of this molecular approach in supporting conservation actions on sandy beaches, an ecosystem highly impacted by anthropogenic stressors (von der Heyden et al. 2020). Similarly, a study involving tree species was used to investigate large-scale conservation corridors in subtropical shrublands, and to support planning decisions for their conservation (Potts et al. 2013).
Comparative phylogeography is still in its infancy in the Neotropics, and has primarily been used to investigate the association between the evolutionary histories of two or more species, and to understand the dynamics of their evolution in different habitats or biomes. For instance, CP has been used in birds and bats to evaluate whether the presence of barriers can promote different phylogeographic patterns among ecologically diverse species (Matos et al. 2016; Loureiro et al. 2020, respectively), to test biogeographic hypotheses in river otters (Ruiz-García et al. 2018), and to investigate the impact of the climate change which occurred in the Pleistocene on orchid bees (López-Uribe et al. 2014). To our knowledge, there are still no comparative phylogenetic studies primarily designed to answer questions on conservation in the Neotropics. Considering the aforementioned potential, the use of CP to identify priority areas in the Neotropics could be valuable for the conservation of its megadiversity.
3.3 Environmental DNA and Invertebrate-Derived DNA and Conservation
The use of environmental DNA (eDNA) and invertebrate-derived DNA or ingested DNA (iDNA), in association with modern sequencing technologies, has been increasingly recognized as a powerful tool for biodiversity assessment and conservation (Carvalho et al. 2022; see Chap. 18 for more details). Human-promoted habitat loss and climate change have led to a true global biodiversity crisis (Bellard et al. 2012; Dirzo et al. 2014; Haddad et al. 2015), and a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity is critical for nature conservation. Traditional methods for surveying species are generally limited to sampling at a local scale and with a substantial effort. New technologies, such as metabarcoding using eDNA and iDNA, can be powerful tools for biodiversity surveys, and for supporting the conservation of natural ecosystems (Carvalho et al. 2022).
Environmental DNA obtained from water, soil, or air can provide more accurate and less time-consuming biodiversity surveys, as it is capable of assessing the species diversity – including rare and elusive species – from a large number of samples and in large-scale surveys, notably reducing labor costs (Bohmann et al. 2014; Rees et al. 2014). In addition, the community of vertebrates can also be assessed through the iDNA obtained from the guts of invertebrates such as flies, mosquitoes, leeches, and beetles (Calvignac-Spencer et al. 2013; Schnell et al. 2015; Kocher et al. 2017a), as easily and efficiently as with eDNA.
According to Taberlet et al. (2012), the term “environmental DNA” first appeared at the beginning of the 2000s, coinciding with the emergence of the earliest metagenomic studies (Rondon et al. 2000; Gillespie et al. 2002). However, the first reference to an eDNA extraction method is credited to Ogram et al. (1987), who described a method for extracting microbial DNA from sediments. Since then, the application of metagenomics to conservation has become a feasible and convenient task. For example, a combination of metagenomics, microscopy, microbe cultivation, and water chemistry, was used to characterize microbial communities in coral atolls, furthering the scientific understanding of the association of microbes with the degradation of coral reef ecosystems across the globe (Dinsdale et al. 2008). Soon after, eDNA began to be used to assess eukaryote communities on a global scale (e.g., Bhadury et al. 2006), mainly through next-generation sequencing and metabarcoding for taxon identification (e.g., Chariton et al. 2010).
Few studies have utilized eDNA or iDNA to evaluate eukaryotic communities in the Neotropics. The first study using eDNA in the Neotropics assessed amphibian communities in Brazilian Atlantic Forest streams, and compared the results with conventional field surveys (Sasso et al. 2017). Of the ten species that had been previously identified – over a five-year period – through visual-acoustic methods, being thus linked with the streams at least during one of their life stages (i.e., egg, tadpole or post-metamorphic), the authors were able to detect nine of them through eDNA metabarcoding from water samples collected over 4 days. This result illustrates how the eDNA method can be beneficial in supporting the conservation of neotropical amphibians. In the same year, Kocher et al. (2017b) reported short mitochondrial sequences for the identification of Amazon mammals through metabarcoding.
Subsequently, eDNA from water samples and metabarcoding were successfully employed to assess the mammalian communities in two highly biodiverse regions of Brazil, the Amazon and the Atlantic Forest (Sales et al. 2020). To our knowledge, this was the first study aimed at detecting neotropical mammals using DNA extracted from water, an effort in which the potential and challenges of eDNA monitoring for mammals were highlighted. Indeed, eDNA from water bodies has predominantly been used to detect fish communities around the world (for a review, see Carvalho et al. 2022), and this has also been observed in the Neotropics (Cantera et al. 2019; Milan et al. 2020; Sales et al. 2021; Santana et al. 2021; Carvalho and Leal 2023).
On the other hand, iDNA obtained from the guts of insects (either hematophagous, saprophagous, or coprophagous ones) has been predominantly used to assess mammal communities (Calvignac-Spencer et al. 2013; Schnell et al. 2015; Rodgers et al. 2017; Saranholi et al. 2023), although other vertebrates have also been identified (Calvignac-Spencer et al. 2013; Saranholi et al. 2023). iDNA has also been used in ecological investigations, such as dietary studies focused on disease transmission by hematophagous insects (Bitome-Essono et al. 2017), pathogen and virome assessment (Bass et al. 2023), trophic interactions (Paula et al. 2016), and biological control (Paula and Andow 2022). In the Neotropics, the use of iDNA to assess animal communities is still very incipient, and it is mostly dedicated to testing and comparing different insect groups, mainly for surveys focused on mammals (Massey et al. 2022; Saranholi et al. 2023).
An important limitation in the use of eDNA/iDNA and metabarcoding is the availability (or rather, the lack thereof) of reference barcoding sequences, especially when working in the Neotropics. Further efforts are still required to obtain good sets of these sequences. However, due to the relative ease of collecting insects or environmental samples from different biomes, as well as the cost-effectiveness and time-saving benefits of eDNA/iDNA analyses, and their potential for future technological and methodological advancements, these approaches may still become the primary tools for conducting easy and efficient biodiversity surveys worldwide, particularly in the hyperdiverse Neotropics.
4 Conservation Genomics in Neotropics
Conservation genomics can be defined similarly to conservation genetics, with the difference being the amount of molecular information available from genomic studies (Avise 2010). Thus, conservation genomics refers to the use of genomic techniques to address problems in conservation biology (Allendorf et al. 2010). The number of genomes sequenced is rapidly increasing and, while the first reported eukaryotic genome sequences were from model species (e.g., Caenorhabditis elegans, Arabidopsis thaliana, Drosophila melanogaster), most of the currently sequenced species are non-model organisms, indicating a growing availability of genomic information from an ever-expanding number of plants and animals (Ellegren 2014; for more on this, see Chaps. 19, 20, and 21).
Genomic techniques can be categorized into three basic classes (Allendorf et al. 2010). The first one consists of SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) genotyping microarrays, which are used to detect single-base polymorphisms across the DNA of a population. However, using SNP microarrays or SNP chips suffers from an important limitation. Because an SNP chip is built to be species-specific, its use is often limited to the target species. Thus, considering the high costs associated with their development and construction, SNP microarrays are most commonly designed for either model species or species of great economic interest. For instance, SNP microarrays are used in human genetics, from detecting single-gene mutations (Bruno et al. 2011) to forensic investigations (Voskoboinik et al. 2015). They have also been used for genotyping in animal breeding, such as in alpacas (Vicugna pacos) (Calderon et al. 2021). The second class of genomic techniques is reduced-genome representation sequencing – or GBS (Genotyping-by-Sequencing), with methods such as RADseq (Restriction-site Associated DNA sequencing) and ddRADseq (Double-digested Restriction-site Associated DNA sequencing), which employ next-generation sequencing technology to target orthologous regions across the genome of different individuals. For example, ddRADseq has been used to develop a panel of SNPs to investigate population polymorphisms in migratory birds (Larison et al. 2021). A similar approach has been used to investigate diversification within a neotropical toad species, and to test a set of hypotheses concerning reduced gene flow among populations (Thomé et al. 2021). Finally, whole-genome sequencing, which was initially used for describing the genomes of various organisms, from viruses and bacteria to plants and animals, has now been increasingly used in population genomic studies. Public databases (e.g., GenBank) already make a considerable number of genomes available, which have been studied in order to answer a wide variety of questions. It is noteworthy that all these genomic techniques produce vast amounts of data, requiring the critical use of bioinformatics for their analyses (Allendorf et al. 2010).
Population genomics focuses on the variations between genomes and populations (Luikart et al. 2003), and the large-scale resequencing of genomes from various populations could lead to the identification of genes and genomic regions linked to fitness-related traits (Ellegren 2014). Conservation genomics may take advantage of this approach to study the genetic bases of local adaptations, or inbreeding depression (Allendorf et al. 2010). On the other hand, with the use of neutral markers, conservation genomics can also estimate population parameters such as genetic diversity, gene flow, and effective population size, which may be employed to support species management and conservation. Thus, genomic tools have great potential to improve the management of populations for conservation, from estimating the genetic parameters of populations with basis on a large number of neutral markers, to identifying loci linked to local adaptations (Allendorf et al. 2010).
In the Neotropics, genomic tools have been increasingly used for the conservation of plants and animals. For example, landscape genomic analyses have been used to produce insights on the negative consequences of habitat loss, and to recommend gene flow restoration among populations of endangered turtles (Gallego-García et al. 2019). Fish are among the groups that have been most extensively assessed by genomic approaches in the Neotropics, likely due to the expansion of aquaculture of native species, and to the importance of conserving these resources. Indeed, genomic tools have greatly enhanced our understanding of neotropical fish, and can aid in their conservation. For example, the development of SNP panels for population genetics (Martínez et al. 2016, 2017; Mastrochirico-Filho et al. 2016; Delord et al. 2018), the assessment of genetic diversity in breeding species (Mastrochirico-Filho et al. 2019), and the investigation of hybrid zones in an annual fish genus (García et al. 2019) have provided valuable insights. In addition, the production of linkage maps and the utilization of genome-wide association studies to investigate pathogen resistance (Mastrochirico-Filho et al. 2020; Ariede et al. 2022) and genes linked with the absence of intermuscular bones (Nunes et al. 2020) demonstrate the potential of genomic tools for supporting both aquaculture and conservation efforts.
The Neotropics are primarily composed of low- and middle-income countries that lack the infrastructure to manufacture equipment and chemicals for next-generation sequencing, which has made genomic research in the region difficult due to the high costs involved. Nevertheless, the lowering costs of these technologies have made them more accessible globally, which should have a significant impact on future biodiversity conservation studies in the Neotropics. (For more information, see Chaps. 19, 20, and 21).
5 Final Considerations
Conservation genetics is a well-established field of study around the world, including in the hyperdiverse Neotropics. From DNA barcoding to genomics, conservation genetic approaches have been widely used to address a variety of conservation questions in plants and animals, and to offer management actions for target species (Torres-Florez et al. 2018). Still, despite the many achievements of the past decades, several important questions related to selectively important genetic variation, fitness and adaptation, as well as genetic and environmental interactions, continue to challenge conservation geneticists. Most inferences on conservation genetics are obtained from microsatellite-based population studies, but the true value of neutral genetic diversity for species conservation is still under debate (García-Dorado & Caballero 2021; Teixeira & Huber 2021; Hoban et al. 2023). In this context, conservation genomics can offer new opportunities for monitoring changes in allele frequency (both neutral and non-neutral), and for evaluating the effects of genetic drift and natural selection within and between populations (Allendorf et al. 2010), in addition to identifying genes and genomic regions involved in adaptation (Ellegren 2014).
Expanding from the species level to the community or ecosystem levels can help address broader conservation concerns, and using techniques such as phylogenetic diversity, comparative phylogeography, and eDNA/iDNA can promote new paradigms in conservation genetics. Regardless of the questions being asked, it appears that the importance of conservation genetics and genomics is still poorly understood by decision makers. In their review, Torres-Florez et al. (2018) found few cases of improvements in species protection resulting from published research on conservation genetics. Applying conservation genetics and genomics information to policy and decision making, as well as to the planning and implementation of conservation practices, remains a significant challenge. This is particularly true in the Neotropics, where biodiversity is vast and includes strategic biomes such as the Amazon Forest, which is crucial for global sustainability.
References
Aguillar-Tomasini MA, Martin MD, Speed JDM (2021) Assessing spatial patterns of phylogenetic diversity of Mexican mammals for biodiversity conservation. Glob Ecol Conserv 31:e01834
Ahmed SS (2022) DNA barcoding in plants and animals: a critical review. Preprints 2022010310. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202201.0310.v1
Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G (2010) Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet 11(10):697–709
Aninta AG, Rocha R, López-Baucells A et al (2019) Erosion of phylogenetic diversity in Neotropical bat assemblages: findings from a whole-ecosystem fragmentation experiment. Biodivers Conserv 28:4047–4063
Antonini Y, Machado CB, Galetti PM Jr et al (2017) Patterns of orchid bee species diversity and turnover among forested plateaus of Central Amazonia. PLoS One 12(4):e0175884. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.017588
Ariede RB, Freitas MV, Lira LVG et al (2022) Linkage map for chromosome-level genome anchoring and genome-wide association study for resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila in Colossoma macropomum. Aquaculture 560:738462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738462
Avise JC (2010) Perspective: conservation genetics enters the genomics era. Conserv Genet 11:665–669
Avise JC, Arnold J, Ball RM et al (1987) Intraspecific phylogeography: the mitochondrial DNA bridge between population genetics and systematics. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 18:489–522
Ayala-Burbano PA, Caldano L, Galetti PM Jr et al (2017) Genetic assessment for the endangered black lion tamarin Leontopithecus chrysopygus (Mikan, 1823), Callitrichidae, primates. Am Primatol 79:e22719. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22719
Ayala-Burbano PA, Galetti PM Jr, Wormell D et al (2020) Studbook and molecular analyses for the endangered black-lion-tamarin; an integrative approach for assessing genetic diversity and driving management in captivity. Sci Rep 10:6781. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63542-2
Banhos A, Hrbek T, Sanaiotti TM et al (2016) Reduction of genetic diversity of the harpy eagle in Brazilian tropical forests. PLoS One 11(2):e0148902. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148902
Bass D, Christison KW, Stentiford GD et al (2023) Environmental DNA/RNA for pathogen and parasite detection, surveillance, and ecology. Trends Parasitol 39(4):285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pt.2022.12.010
Bellard C, Bertelsmeier C, Leadley P et al (2012) Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecol Lett 15(4):365–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01736.x
Bhadury P, Austen MC, Bilton DT et al (2006) Molecular detection of marine nematodes from environmental samples: overcoming eukaryotic interference. Aquat Microb Ecol 44:97–103
Bitome-Essono P-Y, Ollomo B, Arnathau C et al. (2017) Tracking zoonotic pathogens using blood- sucking flies as ’flying syringes’. eLife 6: e22069. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22069
Bohmann K, Evans A, Gilbert MTP et al (2014) Environmental DNA for wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 29(6):358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.003
Bruno DL, Stark Z, Amor DJ et al (2011) Extending the scope of diagnostic chromosome analysis: detection of single gene defects using high-resolution SNP microarrays. Hum Mutat 32(12):1500–1506
Calderon M, More MJ, Gutierrez GA et al (2021) Development of a 76k alpaca (Vicugna pacos) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) microarray. Genes 12:291. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12020291
Calvignac-Spencer S, Leendertz FH, Gilbert MTP et al (2013) An invertebrate stomach’s view on vertebrate ecology: certain invertebrates could be used as “vertebrate samplers” and deliver DNA-based information on many aspects of vertebrate ecology. BioEssays 35(11):1004–1013. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201300060
Cantera I, Cilleros K, Valentini A et al (2019) Optimizing environmental DNA sampling effort for fish inventories in tropical streams and rivers. Sci Rep 9:3085. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39399-5
Carvalho DC, Leal CG (2023) Steps forward in biomonitoring 2.0: eDNA Metabarcoding and community-level modelling allow the assessment of complex drivers of Neotropical fish diversity. Glob Change Biol 29:1688–1690
Carvalho DC, Oliveira DAA, Beheregaray LB et al (2012) Hidden genetic diversity and distinct evolutionarily significant units in a commercially important Neotropical apex predator, the catfish Pseudoplatystoma corruscans. Conserv Genet 13:1671–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-012-0402-6
Carvalho CS, de Oliveira ME, Rodriguez-Castro KG et al (2022) Efficiency of eDNA and iDNA in assessing vertebrate diversity and its abundance. Mol Ecol Resour 22:1262–1273
Chariton AA, Court LN, Hartley DM et al (2010) Ecological assessment of estuarine sediments by pyrosequencing eukaryotic ribosomal DNA. Front Ecol Environ 8(5):233–238. https://doi.org/10.1890/090115
Coimbra MRM, Dantas HL, Luna MMS et al (2020) High gene flow in two migratory Neotropical fish species, Salminus franciscanus and Brycon orthotaenia, and implications for conservation aquaculture. Aquatic Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 30:1063–1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3336
Collevatti RG, Leite KCE, Miranda GHB et al (2007) Evidence of high inbreeding in a population of the endangered giant anteater, Myrmecophaga tridactyla (Myrmecophagidae), from Emas National Park, Brazil. Genet Mol Biol 30(1):112–120. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-47572007000100020
Costa MC, Oliveira PR Jr, Davanço PV et al (2017) Recovering the genetic identity of an extinct-in-the-wild species: the puzzling case of the Alagoas curassow. PLoS One 12(1):e0169636. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169636
Delord C, Lassalle G, Oger A et al. (2018) A cost-and-time effective procedure to develop SNP markers for multiple species: A support for community genetics. Methods Ecol Evol 9:1959–1974. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13034
Dinsdale EA, Pantos O, Smriga S et al (2008) Microbial ecology of four coral atolls in the northern Line Islands. PLoS One 3(2):e1584. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001584
Dirzo R, Young HS, Galetti M et al (2014) Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345:401–406. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1251817
Ellegren H (2014) Genome sequencing and population genomics in non-model organisms. Trends Ecol Evol 29(1):51–63
Faith DP (1992) Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10
Fenker J, Tedeschi LG, Pyron RA et al (2014) Phylogenetic diversity, habitat loss and conservation in south American pitvipers (Crotalinae: Bothrops and Bothrocophias). Divers Distrib 20:1108–1119
Fišer PŽ, Buzan EV (2014) 20 years since the introduction of DNA barcoding: from theory to application. J Appl Genet 55:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13353-013-0180-y
Ford EB (1964) Ecological genetics. Wiley, New York, 335pp
Frankel OH (1970) Variation – the essence of life. Sir Willian Macleay memorial lecture. Proc Linn Soc NSW 95(2):158–169
Frankel OH (1974) Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility. Genetica 78:53–65
Frankel OH, Soulé ME (1981) Conservation and evolution. Cambrigde University Press, Cambridge, 327pp
Frankham R, Ballou J, Briscoe D (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 545 pp
Frankham R, Ballou JD, Ralls K et al (2017) Genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 401pp
Gallego-García N, Forero-Medina G, Vargas-Ramírez M et al (2019) Landscape genomic signatures indicate reduced gene flow and forest-associated adaptive divergence in an endangered neotropical turtle. Mol Ecol 28:2757–2771
Garavello JC, Ramírez JL, de Oliveira AK et al (2021) Integrative taxonomy reveals a new species of neotropical headstanding fish in genus Schizodon (Characiformes: Anostomidae). Neotrop Ichthyol 19(4):e210016
García G, Ríos N, Gutiérrez V et al (2019) Transcriptome-based SNP discovery and validation in the hybrid zone of the Neotropical annual fish genus Austrolebias. Genes 10:789. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100789
García‐Dorado A, Caballero A (2021) Neutral genetic diversity as a useful tool for conservation biology. Conserv Genet 22:541–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01384-9
Gerould JH (1921) Blue-green caterpillars: the origin and ecology of a mutation in hemolymph color in Colias (Eurymus) philodice. J Exp Zool 34:385–412
Gillespie DE, Brady SF, Bettermann AD et al (2002) Isolation of antibiotics Turbomycin A and B from a metagenomic. Appl Environ Microbiol 68(9):4301–4306
Gómez-Ortiz Y, Domínguez-Veja H, Moreno CE (2017) Spatial variation of mammal richness, functional and phylogenetic diversity in the Mexican transition zone. Community Ecol 18(2):121–127
González-Orozco CE, Sosa CC, Thornhill AH et al (2021) Phylogenetic diversity and conservation of crop wild relatives in Colombia. Evol Appl 14(11):2603–2617
Haddad NM, Brudvig LA, Clobert J et al (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Sci Adv 1:e1500052–e1500052. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500052
Hanz DM, Böhning-Gaese K, Ferger SW et al (2019) Functional and phylogenetic diversity of bird assemblages are filtered by different biotic factors on tropical mountains. J Biogeogr 46:291–303
Hoban S, Bruford MW, da Silva JM et al (2023) Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Conserv Genet 24:181–191
Kocher A, de Thoisy B, Catzeflis F et al (2017a) iDNA screening: disease vectors as vertebrate samplers. Mol Ecol 26(22):6478–6486. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14362
Kocher A, Thoisy B, Catzeflis F et al (2017b) Evaluation of short mitochondrial metabarcodes for the identification of Amazonian mammals. Methods Ecol Evol 8(10):1276–1283. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12729
Langen K, Schwarzer J, Kullmann H et al (2011) Microsatellite support for active inbreeding in a cichlid fish. PLoS One 6(9):e24689. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024689
Larison B, Lindsay AR, Bossu C et al (2021) Leveraging genomics to understand threats to migratory birds. Evol Appl 14:1646–1658
Lima RAF, Oliveira AA, Colletta GD et al (2018) Can plant DNA barcoding be implemented in species-rich tropical regions? A perspective from São Paulo state, Brazil. Genet Mol Biol 41(3):661–670. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2017-0282
López-Uribe MM, Zamudio KR, Cardoso CF et al (2014) Climate, physiological tolerance and sex-biased dispersal shape genetic structure of Neotropical orchid bees. Mol Ecol 23:1874–1890
Loureiro LO, Engstrom MD, Lim BK (2020) Comparative phylogeography of mainland and insular species of Neotropical molossid bats (Molossus). Ecol Evol 10:389–409
Luikart G, England PR, Tallmon D et al (2003) The power and promise of population genomics: from genotyping to genome typing. Nat Rev Genet 4:981–994
Machado CB, Braga-Silva A, Freitas PD et al (2022) Damming shapes genetic patterns and may affect the persistence of freshwater fish populations. Freshw Biol 67:603–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/fwb.13866
Martínez JG, Caballero-Gaitán SJ, Sánchez-Bernal D et al (2016) De novo SNP markers development for the Neotropical gilded catfish Brachyplatystoma rousseauxii using next-generation sequencing-based genotyping. Conserv Genet Resour 8:415–418
Martínez JG, Machado VN, Caballero-Gaitán SJ et al (2017) SNPs markers for the heavily overfished tambaqui Colossoma macropomum, a Neotropical fish, using next-generation sequencing-based de novo genotyping. Conserv Genet Resour 9:29–33
Massey AL, Bronzoni RVM, da Silva DJF et al (2022) Invertebrates for vertebrate biodiversity monitoring: comparisons using three insect taxa as iDNA samplers. Mol Ecol Resour 22(3):962–977. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13525
Mastrochirico-Filho VA, Hata ME, Sato LS et al (2016) SNP discovery from liver transcriptome in the fish Piaractus mesopotamicus. Conserv Genet Resour 8:109–114
Mastrochirico-Filho VA, del Pazo F, Hata ME et al (2019) Assessing genetic diversity for a pre-breeding program in Piaractus mesopotamicus by SNPs and SSRs. Genes 10:668. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10090668
Mastrochirico-Filho VA, Borges CHS, Freitas MV et al (2020) Development of a SNP linkage map and genome-wide association study for resistance to Aeromonas hydrophila in pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus). BMC Genomics 21:672. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-020-07090-z
Matos MV, Borges SH, d’Horta FM et al (2016) Comparative Phylogeography of two bird species, Tachyphonus phoenicius (Thraupidae) and Polytmus theresiae (Trochilidae), specialized in Amazonian white-sand vegetation. Biotropica 48(1):110–120
Milan DT, Mendes IS, Damasceno JS et al (2020) New 12S metabarcoding primers for enhanced Neotropical freshwater fish biodiversity assessment. Sci Rep 10:17966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-74902-3
Moraes AM, Ruiz-Miranda CR, Ribeiro MC et al (2017) Temporal genetic dynamics of reintroduced and translocated populations of the endangered golden lion tamarin (Leontopithecus rosalia). Conserv Genet 18:995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-0948-4
Moritz C, Faith DP (1998) Comparative phylogeography and the identification of genetically divergent areas for conservation. Mol Ecol 7:419–429
Nali RC, Becker CG, Zamudio KR et al (2020) Topography, more than land cover, explains genetic diversity in a Neotropical savanna tree frog. Divers Distrib 26:1798–1812. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13154
Nogueira AA, Bragagnolo C, DaSilva MB et al (2019) Spatial variation in phylogenetic diversity of communities of Atlantic Forest harvestmen (Opiliones, Arachnida). Insect Conserv Divers 12:414–426
Nunes JRS, Pértille F, Andrade SCS et al (2020) Genome-wide association study reveals genes associated with the absence of intermuscular bones in tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Anim Genet 51:899–909
Ogram A, Sayler GS, Barkay T (1987) The extraction and purification of microbial DNA from sediments. J Microbiol Methods 7:57–66
Ouborg NJ, Pertoldi C, Loeschcke V et al (2010) Conservation genetics in transition to conservation genomics. Trends Genet 26(4):177–187
Paula DP, Andow DA (2022) DNA high-throughput sequencing for arthropod gut content analysis to evaluate effectiveness and safety of biological control agents. Neotrop Entomol 52:302–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13744-022-01011-3
Paula DP, Linard B, Crampton-Platt A et al (2016) Uncovering trophic interactions in arthropod predators through DNA shotgun-sequencing of gut contents. PLoS One 11(9):e0161841. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161841
Perea R, Schroeder JW, Dirzo R (2022) The herbaceous understory plant community in the context of the overstory: an overlooked component of tropical diversity. Diversity 14:800. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14100800
Pires AA, Ramírez JL, Galetti PM Jr et al (2017) Molecular analysis reveals hidden diversity in Zungaro (Siluriformes: Pimelodidade): a genus of giant south American catfish. Genetica 145:335–340
Potts AJ, Hedderson TA, Cowling RM (2013) Testing large-scale conservation corridors designed for patterns and processes: comparative phylogeography of three tree species. Divers Distrib 19:1418–1428
Prescott GW, Gilroy JJ, Haugaasen T et al (2016) Managing Neotropical oil palm expansion to retain phylogenetic diversity. J Appl Ecol 53:150–158
Ramírez JL, Birindelli JLO, Carvalho DC et al (2017a) Revealing hidden diversity of the underestimated Neotropical Ichthyofauna: DNA barcoding in the recently described genus Megaleporinus (Characiformes: Anostomidae). Front Genet 8:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2017.0014
Ramírez JL, Birindelli JLO, Galetti PM Jr (2017b) A new genus of Anostomidae (Ostariophysi: Characiformes): diversity, phylogeny and biogeography based on cytogenetic, molecular and morphological data. Mol Phylogenet Evol 7:308–323
Rees HC, Maddison BC, Middleditch DJ (2014) The detection of aquatic animal species using environmental DNA – a review of eDNA as a survey tool in ecology. J Appl Ecol 51(5):1450–1459. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12306
Ríos N, Casanova A, Hermida M et al (2020) Population genomics in Rhamdia quelen (Heptapteridae, Siluriformes) reveals deep divergence and adaptation in the Neotropical region. Genes 11:109. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes11010109
Rodgers TW, Xu CCY, Giacalone J et al (2017) Carrion fly-derived DNA metabarcoding is an effective tool for mammal surveys: evidence from a known tropical mammal community. Mol Ecol Resour 17:e133–e145
Rondon MR, August PR, Bettermann AD et al (2000) Cloning the soil metagenome: a strategy for accessing the genetic and functional diversity of uncultured microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2541–2547
Ruiz-García M, Escobar-Armel P, Thoisy B et al (2018) Biodiversity in the Amazon: origin hypotheses, intrinsic capacity of species colonization, and comparative Phylogeography of river otters (Lontra longicaudis and Pteronura brasiliensis, Mustelidae, Carnivora) and Pink River dolphin (Inia sp., Iniidae, Cetacea). J Mammal Evol 25:213–240
Sales NG, McKenzie MB, Drake J et al (2020) Fishing for mammals: landscape-level monitoring of terrestrial and semi-aquatic communities using eDNA from riverine systems. J Appl Ecol 57(4):707–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13592
Sales NG, Wangensteen OS, Carvalho DC et al (2021) Space-time dynamics in monitoring neotropical fish communities using eDNA metabarcoding. Sci Total Environ 754:142096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142096
Santana CD, Parenti LR, Dillman CB et al (2021) The critical role of natural history museums in advancing eDNA for biodiversity studies: a case study with Amazonian fishes. Sci Rep 11:18159. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97128-3
Saranholi BH, Rodriguez-Castro KG, Carvalho CS et al (2023) Comparing iDNA from mosquitoes and flies to survey mammals in a semi-controlled neotropical area. Mol Ecol Resour. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13851
Sasso T, Lopes CM, Valentini A et al (2017) Environmental DNA characterization of amphibian communities in the Brazilian Atlantic forest: potential application for conservation of a rich and threatened fauna. Biol Conserv 215:225–232
Schnell IB, Sollmann R, Calvignac-Spencer S et al (2015) iDNA from terrestrial haematophagous leeches as a wildlife surveying and monitoring tool – prospects, pitfalls and avenues to be developed. Front Zool 12:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12983-015-0115-z
Silva-Santos R, Ramírez JL, Galetti PM Jr et al (2018) Molecular evidences of a hidden complex scenario in Leporinus cf. friderici. Front Genet 9:47. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00047
Taberlet P, Coissac E, Hajibabaei M et al (2012) Environmental DNA. Mol Ecol 21:1789–1793
Teixeira JC, Huber CD (2021) The inflated significance of neutral genetic diversity in conservation genetics. PNAS 118 (10): e2015096118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015096118
Thomé MTC, Carstens BC, Rodrigues MT et al (2021) A role of asynchrony of seasons in explaining genetic differentiation in a Neotropical toad. Heredity 127:363–372
Torres-Florez JP, Johnson WE, Nery MF et al (2018) The coming of age of conservation genetics in Latin America: what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Conserv Genet 19:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1006-y
Tucker CM, Cadotte MW, Carvalho SB et al (2017) A guide to phylogenetic metrics for conservation, community ecology and macroecology. Biol Rev 92:698–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12252
Vijayan K, Tsou CH (2010) DNA barcoding in plants: taxonomy in a new perspective. Curr Sci 99(11):1530–1541. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24069450
Vitorino LC, Reis MNO, Bessa LA et al (2020) Landscape and climate influence the patterns of genetic diversity and inbreeding in Cerrado plant species. Diversity 12:421. https://doi.org/10.3390/d12110421
von der Heyden S, Mbongwa N, Hui C (2020) Supporting sandy beach conservation through comparative phylogeography: the case of Excirolana (Crustacea: isopoda) in South Africa. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 242:106841
Voskoboinik L, Ayers SB, LeFebvre AK et al (2015) SNP-microarrays can accurately identify the presence of an individual in complex forensic DNA mixtures. Forensic Sci Int: Genet 16: 208–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2015.01.009
Webb CO (2000) Exploring the phylogenetic structure of ecological communities: an example for rain forest trees. Am Nat 156(1):145–155
Webb CO, Ackerly DD, McPeek MA et al (2002) Phylogenies and community ecology. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 33:475–505. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.33.010802.150448
Wilson EO (1988) Biodiversity (ed). Harvard University, National Academy of Sciences/Smithsonian Institution, 538 pp
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Brazilian agency Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq, 303524/2019-7).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Galetti, P.M. (2023). A Fresh Look at Conservation Genetics in the Neotropics. In: Galetti Jr., P.M. (eds) Conservation Genetics in the Neotropics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34854-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34854-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-34853-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-34854-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)