When do Genetic Considerations Require Special Approaches to Ecological Restoration?

  • Eric E. Knapp
  • Andrew R. Dyer
Chapter

Abstract

Conservation biology cannot be concerned solely with preserving what remains. With many habitat types reduced to as little as 1% (e.g., tallgrass prairie east of the Mississippi River, USA) or even 0.1% (e.g., Central Valley riparian forest, California, USA) of their original area (see references in Noss et al. 1995), protecting what is left often represents “too little, too late.” Even habitat types that remain relatively common often occur in isolated patches that are too small for long-term conservation of viable populations of all organisms, particularly those of large carnivores and ungulates (Schonewald-Cox 1983). For these reasons, effective preservation of biodiversity may require investment in ecological restoration to increase the size as well as the connectivity of available habitat (Jordan et al. 1988). Restoration will be especially vital for restoring native diversity to many of the world’s most fertile and productive communities, where habitat destruction resulting from human activities has been concentrated (Janzen 1988).

Keywords

Ecological Restoration Habitat Degradation Vernal Pool Restoration Site Outbreeding Depression 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Antonovics, J. and A.D. Bradshaw. 1970. Evolution in closely adjacent plant populations VIII. Clinal patterns at a mine boundary. Heredity 25:349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, J. A. 1981. The evolutionary consequences of monoculture. In Genetic consequences of man-made change, eds. J.A. Bishop and L.M. Cook, 209–248. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barrett, S.C.H. and J.R. Kohn. 1991. Genetic and evolutionary consequences of small population size in plants: implications for conservation. In Genetics and conservation of rare plants, eds. D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger, 3–30. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bartley, D.M. and G.A. Gall. 1990. Genetic structure and gene flow in chinook salmon populations of California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, A.D. 1959. Population differentiation in Agrostis tenuis Sibth. I. Morphological differentiation. New Phytologist 58:208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradshaw, A.D. 1983. The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bradshaw, A.D. 1984. Ecological significance of genetic variation between populations. In Perspectives on plant population biology, eds. R. Dirzo and J. Sarukhan, 213–228. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Clary, W.P. 1975. Ecotypic adaptation in Sitanion hystrix. Ecology 56:1407–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clausen, J., D.D. Keck, and W.M. Heisey. 1940. Experimental studies on the nature of species. I. Effect of varied environments on western North American plants. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 520.Google Scholar
  10. Ellstrand, N.C., B. Devlin, and D.L. Marshall. 1989. Gene flow by pollen into small populations: Data from experimental and natural stands of wild radish. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences 86:9044–9047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ennos, R.A. 1983. Maintenance of genetic variation in plant populations. Evolutionary Biology 16:129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fenster, C.B. and M.R. Dudash. 1994. Genetic considerations for plant population restoration and conservation, in Restoration of endangered species, eds. M.L. Bowles and C.J. Whelan, 34–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Futuyma, D. J. 1983. Interspecific interactions and the maintenance of genetic diversity, in Genetics and conservation, eds. C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas, 364–373. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  14. Gill, D.S. and P. L. Marks. 1991. Tree and shrub seedling colonization of old fields in central New York. Ecological Monographs 61:183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guerrant, E.O., Jr. 1992. Genetic and demographic considerations in the sampling and reintroduction of rare plants. In Conservation biology: The theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation, and management, eds. P.L. Fiedler, and S.K. Jain, 321–344. New York: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Handel, S.N., G.R. Robinson, and A.J. Beattie. 1994. Biodiversity resources for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 2:230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harlan, H.V. and M.L. Martini. 1938. The effect of natural selection in a mixture of barley varieties. Journal of Agricultural Research 57:189–199.Google Scholar
  18. Hedrick, P.W. 1995. Gene flow and genetic restoration: The Florida panther as a case study. Conservation Biology 9:996–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hoskinson, P.E. and CO. Qualset. 1967. Geographic variation in ‘Balbo’ rye. Tennessee Farm and Home Science Progress Report 62:8–9.Google Scholar
  20. Huenneke, L.F. 1991. Ecological implications of genetic variation in plant populations. In Genetics and conservation of rare plants, eds. D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger, 31–44. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Janzen, D.H. 1988. Tropical ecological and biocultural restoration. Science 239:243–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jordan, W.R., R.L. Peters, and E.B. Allen. 1988. Ecological restoration as a strategy for conserving biological diversity. Environmental Management 12:55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kilcher, M.R. and L. Looman. 1983. ComChapautive performance of some native and introduced grasses in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Range Management 36:654–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knapp, E.E. and K.J. Rice. 1994. Starting from seed: Genetic issues in using native grasses for restoration. Restoration and Management Notes 12:40–45.Google Scholar
  25. Knapp, E.E. and K.J. Rice. 1996. Genetic structure and gene flow in Elymus glaucus (blue wildrye): Implications for native grassland restoration. Restoration Ecology 4:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leberg, P.L. 1993. Strategies for population reintroduction: Effects of genetic variability on population growth and size. Conservation Biology 7:194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ledig, F.T. 1992. Human impacts on genetic diversity in forest ecosystems. Oikos 63:87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leong, J.M. 1994. Pollination of a patchily-distributed plant, Blennosperma nanum, in natural and artificially created vernal pool habitats. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  29. Linhart, Y.B. 1974. Intra-population differentiation in annual plants. I. Veronica peregrina raised under non-competitive conditions. Evolution 28:232–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Linhart, Y.B. 1995. Restoration, revegetation, and the importance of genetic and evolutionary perspectives. In Proceedings: Wildland shrub and arid land restoration symposium, Oct. 19–21, 1993. Las Vegas, NV, eds. B.A. Roundy, E.D. McArthur, J.S. Haley, and D.K. Mann, 271–288. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report 315.Google Scholar
  31. Loveless, M.D. and J.L. Hamrick. 1984. Ecological determinants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 15:65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maehr, D.S. and G.B. Caddick. 1995. Demographics and genetic introgression in the Florida panther. Conservation Biology 9:1295–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martins, P.S. and S.K. Jain. 1979. Role of genetic variation in the colonizing ability of rose clover (Trifolium hirtum). American Naturalist 114:591–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McGranahan, G.H., J. Hansen, and D.V. Shaw. 1988. Inter- and intraspecific variation in California black walnuts. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 113:760–765.Google Scholar
  35. McMillan, C. 1959. The role of ecotypic variation in the distribution of the central grassland of North America. Ecological Monographs 29:385–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Millar, C.I. and W.J. Libby. 1989. Disneyland or native ecosystem: Genetics and the restorationist. Restoration and Management Notes 7:18–24.Google Scholar
  37. Millar, C.I. and W.J. Libby. 1991. Strategies for conserving clinal, ecotypic, and disjunct population diversity in widespread species. In Genetics and conservation of rare plants, eds. D.A. Falk and K.E. Holsinger, 149–17. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Naeem, S., L.J. Thompson, S.P. Lawler, J.A. Lawton, and R.M. Woodfin. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Noss, R.F., E.T. LaRoe III, and J.M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, National Biological Service.Google Scholar
  40. Padgett, D.J. and G.E. Crow. 1994. Foreign plant stock: Concerns for wetland mitigation. Restoration and Management Notes 12:168–171.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, M.A. 1985. Local population differentiation for compatibility in an annual legume and its host-specific fungal pathogen. Evolution 39:713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rapson, G.L. and J.B. Wilson. 1988. Non-adaptation in Agrostis capillaris L. (Poaceae). Functional Ecology 2:479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rice, K.J. and R.N. Mack. 1991. Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum III. The demography of reciprocally sown populations. Oecologia 88:91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schonewald-Cox, C.M. 1983, Guidelines to management: A beginning attempt. In Genetics and conservation, eds. C.M. Schonewald-Cox, S.M. Chambers, B. MacBryde, and W.L. Thomas, 14–445. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  45. Snaydon, R.W. and T.M. Davies. 1982. Rapid divergence of plant populations in response to recent changes in soil conditions. Evolution 36:289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soil Conservation Service. 1986. ‘Lassen’ antelope bitterbrush. Washington, D.C: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  47. Sorensen, F.C 1983. Geographic variation in seedling Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) from the western Siskiyou mountains of Oregon. Ecology 64:696–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strauss, S.H., J. Bosquet, V.D. Hipkins, and Y.P. Hong. 1992. Biochemical and molecular genetic markers in biosystematic studies of forest trees. New Forests 6:125–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sultan, S.E. 1987. Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evolutionary Biology 21:127–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Templeton, A.R. 1986. Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. In Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity, ed. M.E. Soulé, 105–116. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Thorp, R.W. 1976. Insect pollination of vernal pool flowers. In Vernal pools, their ecology and conservation, ed. S.K. Jain, 36–40. Davis, CA: University California, Institute of Ecology.Google Scholar
  52. Thorp, R.W. and J.M. Leong. 1995. Native bee pollinators of vernal pool plants. Fremontia 23:3–7.Google Scholar
  53. Tilman, D. and J.A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Turkington, R. and J.L. Harper. 1979. The growth, distribution, and neighbour relationships of Trifolium repens in a permanent pasture. Journal of Ecology 67:245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Waser, N.M. and M.V. Price. 1994. Crossing-distance effects in Delphinium nelsonii: Outbreeding and inbreeding depression in progeny fitness. Evolution 48:842–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wayne, R.K., N. Lehman, M.C. Allard, and R.L. Honeycutt. 1992. Mitochondrial DNA variability of the gray wolf: Genetic consequences of population decline and habitat fragmentation. Conservation Biology 6:559–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric E. Knapp
  • Andrew R. Dyer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations