Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability
The concept of ecological exchangeability, together with genetic exchangeability, is central to both the Cohesion Species Concept as well as to some definitions of Evolutionarily Significant Units. While there are well-established criteria for measuring genetic exchangeability, the concept of ecolog...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Animal conservation 2005-08, Vol.8 (3), p.239-247 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 247 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 239 |
container_title | Animal conservation |
container_volume | 8 |
creator | Rader, Russell B. Belk, Mark C. Shiozawa, Dennis K. Crandall, Keith A. |
description | The concept of ecological exchangeability, together with genetic exchangeability, is central to both the Cohesion Species Concept as well as to some definitions of Evolutionarily Significant Units. While there are well-established criteria for measuring genetic exchangeability, the concept of ecological exchangeability has generated considerable confusion. We describe a procedure that uses the complementary strengths, while recognising the limitations, of both molecular genetic data and ecological experiments to determine the ecological exchangeability of local populations within a species. This is the first synthesis of a combined approach (experiments and genetics) and the first explicit discussion of testing ecological exchangeability. Although it would be ideal to find functional genes that interact to influence quantitative traits resulting in ecological differences (e.g. growth, size, fecundity), we suggest that our current knowledge of functional markers is too limited for most species to use them to differentiate adaptively different local populations. Thus, we argue that ecological experiments using whole organisms combined with neutral markers that indicate evolutionary divergence, provide the strongest case for detecting adaptive differences among local populations. Both genetic divergence and ecological experiments provide the best information for infering ecological exchangeability. This procedure can be used to decide which local populations should be preserved to maintain intraspecific variation and to determine which populations would enhance captive-breeding programs, augment endangered local populations and could best be used to re-introduce native species into historically occupied areas. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1367943005002271 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17253813</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1367943005002271</cupid><sourcerecordid>17253813</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4049-704a1cf494d00b90a5daca44652dc55ae827472906b8b3a3dd08734e7fccfe6c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwA7j1xC1l_YrjYxW1BVFBJZ7iYjmOU1zSptipaP89Kam4IMFpVzvzrUaD0DmGPgYsLu8xjYVkFIADECLwAepgFssIC8kPm72Ro51-jE5CmANgklDcQf3hYuW8M7rs1TbUoVdUvmdNVVaz76PdmDe9nFmdudLV21N0VOgy2LP97KLH0fAhvYomd-PrdDCJDAMmIwFMY1MwyXKATILmuTaasZiT3HCubUIEE0RCnCUZ1TTPIRGUWVEYU9jY0C66aP-ufPWxboKphQvGlqVe2modFBaE0wTTxohbo_FVCN4WauXdQvutwqB2zahfzTQMb5lPV9rt_4AapE-EyoaLWs6F2m5-OO3fVSyo4Or5dqzGr9PpTUpG6qXx0302vci8y2dWzau1XzbF_ZHuCykLgxo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17253813</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rader, Russell B. ; Belk, Mark C. ; Shiozawa, Dennis K. ; Crandall, Keith A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rader, Russell B. ; Belk, Mark C. ; Shiozawa, Dennis K. ; Crandall, Keith A.</creatorcontrib><description>The concept of ecological exchangeability, together with genetic exchangeability, is central to both the Cohesion Species Concept as well as to some definitions of Evolutionarily Significant Units. While there are well-established criteria for measuring genetic exchangeability, the concept of ecological exchangeability has generated considerable confusion. We describe a procedure that uses the complementary strengths, while recognising the limitations, of both molecular genetic data and ecological experiments to determine the ecological exchangeability of local populations within a species. This is the first synthesis of a combined approach (experiments and genetics) and the first explicit discussion of testing ecological exchangeability. Although it would be ideal to find functional genes that interact to influence quantitative traits resulting in ecological differences (e.g. growth, size, fecundity), we suggest that our current knowledge of functional markers is too limited for most species to use them to differentiate adaptively different local populations. Thus, we argue that ecological experiments using whole organisms combined with neutral markers that indicate evolutionary divergence, provide the strongest case for detecting adaptive differences among local populations. Both genetic divergence and ecological experiments provide the best information for infering ecological exchangeability. This procedure can be used to decide which local populations should be preserved to maintain intraspecific variation and to determine which populations would enhance captive-breeding programs, augment endangered local populations and could best be used to re-introduce native species into historically occupied areas.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1367-9430</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-1795</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1367943005002271</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><ispartof>Animal conservation, 2005-08, Vol.8 (3), p.239-247</ispartof><rights>2005 The Zoological Society of London</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4049-704a1cf494d00b90a5daca44652dc55ae827472906b8b3a3dd08734e7fccfe6c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4049-704a1cf494d00b90a5daca44652dc55ae827472906b8b3a3dd08734e7fccfe6c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1017%2FS1367943005002271$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1017%2FS1367943005002271$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rader, Russell B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belk, Mark C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiozawa, Dennis K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crandall, Keith A.</creatorcontrib><title>Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability</title><title>Animal conservation</title><addtitle>Animal Conservation</addtitle><description>The concept of ecological exchangeability, together with genetic exchangeability, is central to both the Cohesion Species Concept as well as to some definitions of Evolutionarily Significant Units. While there are well-established criteria for measuring genetic exchangeability, the concept of ecological exchangeability has generated considerable confusion. We describe a procedure that uses the complementary strengths, while recognising the limitations, of both molecular genetic data and ecological experiments to determine the ecological exchangeability of local populations within a species. This is the first synthesis of a combined approach (experiments and genetics) and the first explicit discussion of testing ecological exchangeability. Although it would be ideal to find functional genes that interact to influence quantitative traits resulting in ecological differences (e.g. growth, size, fecundity), we suggest that our current knowledge of functional markers is too limited for most species to use them to differentiate adaptively different local populations. Thus, we argue that ecological experiments using whole organisms combined with neutral markers that indicate evolutionary divergence, provide the strongest case for detecting adaptive differences among local populations. Both genetic divergence and ecological experiments provide the best information for infering ecological exchangeability. This procedure can be used to decide which local populations should be preserved to maintain intraspecific variation and to determine which populations would enhance captive-breeding programs, augment endangered local populations and could best be used to re-introduce native species into historically occupied areas.</description><issn>1367-9430</issn><issn>1469-1795</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwA7j1xC1l_YrjYxW1BVFBJZ7iYjmOU1zSptipaP89Kam4IMFpVzvzrUaD0DmGPgYsLu8xjYVkFIADECLwAepgFssIC8kPm72Ro51-jE5CmANgklDcQf3hYuW8M7rs1TbUoVdUvmdNVVaz76PdmDe9nFmdudLV21N0VOgy2LP97KLH0fAhvYomd-PrdDCJDAMmIwFMY1MwyXKATILmuTaasZiT3HCubUIEE0RCnCUZ1TTPIRGUWVEYU9jY0C66aP-ufPWxboKphQvGlqVe2modFBaE0wTTxohbo_FVCN4WauXdQvutwqB2zahfzTQMb5lPV9rt_4AapE-EyoaLWs6F2m5-OO3fVSyo4Or5dqzGr9PpTUpG6qXx0302vci8y2dWzau1XzbF_ZHuCykLgxo</recordid><startdate>200508</startdate><enddate>200508</enddate><creator>Rader, Russell B.</creator><creator>Belk, Mark C.</creator><creator>Shiozawa, Dennis K.</creator><creator>Crandall, Keith A.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200508</creationdate><title>Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability</title><author>Rader, Russell B. ; Belk, Mark C. ; Shiozawa, Dennis K. ; Crandall, Keith A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4049-704a1cf494d00b90a5daca44652dc55ae827472906b8b3a3dd08734e7fccfe6c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rader, Russell B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Belk, Mark C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shiozawa, Dennis K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crandall, Keith A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Animal conservation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rader, Russell B.</au><au>Belk, Mark C.</au><au>Shiozawa, Dennis K.</au><au>Crandall, Keith A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability</atitle><jtitle>Animal conservation</jtitle><addtitle>Animal Conservation</addtitle><date>2005-08</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>239</spage><epage>247</epage><pages>239-247</pages><issn>1367-9430</issn><eissn>1469-1795</eissn><abstract>The concept of ecological exchangeability, together with genetic exchangeability, is central to both the Cohesion Species Concept as well as to some definitions of Evolutionarily Significant Units. While there are well-established criteria for measuring genetic exchangeability, the concept of ecological exchangeability has generated considerable confusion. We describe a procedure that uses the complementary strengths, while recognising the limitations, of both molecular genetic data and ecological experiments to determine the ecological exchangeability of local populations within a species. This is the first synthesis of a combined approach (experiments and genetics) and the first explicit discussion of testing ecological exchangeability. Although it would be ideal to find functional genes that interact to influence quantitative traits resulting in ecological differences (e.g. growth, size, fecundity), we suggest that our current knowledge of functional markers is too limited for most species to use them to differentiate adaptively different local populations. Thus, we argue that ecological experiments using whole organisms combined with neutral markers that indicate evolutionary divergence, provide the strongest case for detecting adaptive differences among local populations. Both genetic divergence and ecological experiments provide the best information for infering ecological exchangeability. This procedure can be used to decide which local populations should be preserved to maintain intraspecific variation and to determine which populations would enhance captive-breeding programs, augment endangered local populations and could best be used to re-introduce native species into historically occupied areas.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1367943005002271</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1367-9430 |
ispartof | Animal conservation, 2005-08, Vol.8 (3), p.239-247 |
issn | 1367-9430 1469-1795 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17253813 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
title | Empirical tests for ecological exchangeability |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T21%3A01%3A02IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Empirical%20tests%20for%20ecological%20exchangeability&rft.jtitle=Animal%20conservation&rft.au=Rader,%20Russell%20B.&rft.date=2005-08&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=239&rft.epage=247&rft.pages=239-247&rft.issn=1367-9430&rft.eissn=1469-1795&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1367943005002271&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E17253813%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17253813&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1367943005002271&rfr_iscdi=true |