New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Conservation Efforts May Focus Too Much on Measures of Genetic Diversity

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Image: UCSD

When it comes to conservation-developing plans, say, to protect an endangered species-scientists often look at a population's genetic biodiversity to gauge its health. Preference goes to those with deeper gene pools, which are deemed better able to withstand environmental change. But a new study shows that this approach might overlook many creatures worth preserving. In today's Science, researchers from the University of California at San Diego and the Louisiana State University describe their findings on Acanthinucella spirata, a marine snail found throughout California in many forms.

"Looking at the coast today, there's a dramatic decline in genetic diversity in this species going from south to north," Kaustuv Roy from UCSD says. "But the northern regions have a greater amount of morphological diversity. So which do you use to make conservation decisions-genetic diversity or morphological diversity? Here's a case where the two come into conflict." The team discovered the north-south difference when they analyzed the mitochondrial DNA sequences of 117 snails from 14 populations. They also compared the shapes and sizes of the snails' shells with those found in the fossil record dating back to the Late Pleistocene 125,000 to 11,000 years ago. (The image at right shows the difference between a northern shell [top] and a southern shell [bottom].)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To explain their findings, the scientists suggest that the northern snails probably died out in a series of ice ages during the Pleistocene and earlier. Only later, when the planet warmed again, did gastropods from the south repopulate the northern range, probably between 12,000 and 30,000 years ago, judging from shell traits. "When adaptive evolution happens, it happens quickly," Michael Hellberg of LSU explains. "As a result, the neutral genetic markers commonly used for assessing population uniqueness may not always spot populations with novel adaptive characteristics worth preserving."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe