Dataset Information

Conservation through the lens of (mal)adaptation: Concepts and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Evolutionary approaches are gaining popularity in conservation science, with diverse strategies applied in efforts to support adaptive population outcomes. Yet conservation strategies differ in the type of adaptive outcomes they promote as conservation goals. For instance, strategies based on genetic or demographic rescue implicitly target adaptive population states whereas strategies utilizing transgenerational plasticity or evolutionary rescue implicitly target adaptive processes. These two goals are somewhat polar: adaptive state strategies optimize current population fitness, which should reduce phenotypic and/or genetic variance, reducing adaptability in changing or uncertain environments; adaptive process strategies increase genetic variance, causing maladaptation in the short term, but increase adaptability over the long term. Maladaptation refers to suboptimal population fitness, adaptation refers to optimal population fitness, and (mal)adaptation refers to the continuum of fitness variation from maladaptation to adaptation. Here, we present a conceptual classification for conservation that implicitly considers (mal)adaptation in the short-term and long-term outcomes of conservation strategies. We describe cases of how (mal)adaptation is implicated in traditional conservation strategies, as well as strategies that have potential as a conservation tool but are relatively underutilized. We use a meta-analysis of a small number of available studies to evaluate whether the different conservation strategies employed are better suited toward increasing population fitness across multiple generations. We found weakly increasing adaptation over time for transgenerational plasticity, genetic rescue, and evolutionary rescue. Demographic rescue was generally maladaptive, both immediately after conservation intervention and after several generations. Interspecific hybridization was adaptive only in the F₁ generation, but then rapidly leads to maladaptation. Management decisions that are made to support the process of adaptation must adequately account for (mal)adaptation as a potential outcome and even as a tool to bolster adaptive capacity to changing conditions.

SUBMITTER: Derry AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6691223 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conservation through the lens of (mal)adaptation: Concepts and meta-analysis.

Derry Alison Margaret AM Fraser Dylan J DJ Brady Steven P SP Astorg Louis L Lawrence Elizabeth R ER Martin Gillian K GK Matte Jean-Michel JM Negrín Dastis Jorge Octavio JO Paccard Antoine A Barrett Rowan D H RDH Chapman Lauren J LJ Lane Jeffrey E JE Ballas Chase G CG Close Marissa M Crispo Erika E

Evolutionary applications 20190406 7

Evolutionary approaches are gaining popularity in conservation science, with diverse strategies applied in efforts to support adaptive population outcomes. Yet conservation strategies differ in the type of adaptive outcomes they promote as conservation goals. For instance, strategies based on genetic or demographic rescue implicitly target adaptive population <i>states</i> whereas strategies utilizing transgenerational plasticity or evolutionary rescue implicitly target adaptive <i>processes</i> ...[more]

PMID: 31417615

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To compare the efficacy and safety of intraocular lens (IOL) repositioning and IOL exchange for the treatment of patients with IOL dislocation. METHODS:We systematically searched for relevant publications in English or Chinese in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trial Registration Platform, Clinical Trial.gov, China Biology Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database and grey literature sources. Study quality was assessed using the STROBE template for observational studies and the Cochrane template for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Data were meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS:The review included 14 English-language studies reporting 1 RCT and 13 retrospective case series involving 1,082 eyes. Average follow-up time was 13.7 months. Pooled analysis of 10 studies showed that the two procedures had a similarly effect on best corrected visual acuity (MD -0.00, 95%CI: -0.08 to 0.08, P = 0.99). Pooled analysis of nine studies showed no significant difference in incidence of IOL redislocation (RR 2.12, 95%CI 0.85 to 5.30, P = 0.11); pooled analysis of seven studies showed greater extent of incidence of cystoid macular edema in IOL exchange (RR 0.47, 95%CI 0.21 to 1.30, P = 0.06). Pooled analysis of three studies showed greater extent of incidence of anterior vitrectomy in IOL exchange (RR 0.11, 95%CI 0.04 to 0.33, P<0.0001). Pooled analysis of two studies showed greater postoperative spherical equivalents in IOL repositioning (MD 1.02, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.52, P<0.0001). pooled analysis suggested no significant differences between the two procedures in terms of intraocular pressure, endothelial cell density, surgically induced astigmatism, or incidence of retinal detachment, intraocular hemorrhage or pupillary block. CONCLUSION:IOL repositioning and exchange are safe and effective procedures for treating IOL dislocation. Neither procedure significantly affects best corrected visual acuity and IOL redislocation. IOL exchange was superior to repositioning in terms of postoperative SE, but IOL repositioning was associated with lower incidence of anterior vitrectomy, potentially lower incidence of cystoid macular edema.

Dataset Information

Conservation through the lens of (mal)adaptation: Concepts and meta-analysis.

Publications

Conservation through the lens of (mal)adaptation: Concepts and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets