Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The importance of genomic variation for biodiversity, ecosystems and people

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 22, pages 89–105 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The 2019 United Nations Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services estimated that approximately 1 million species are at risk of extinction. This primarily human-driven loss of biodiversity has unprecedented negative consequences for ecosystems and people. Classic and emerging approaches in genetics and genomics have the potential to dramatically improve these outcomes. In particular, the study of interactions among genetic loci within and between species will play a critical role in understanding the adaptive potential of species and communities, and hence their direct and indirect effects on biodiversity, ecosystems and people. We explore these population and community genomic contexts in the hope of finding solutions for maintaining and improving ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Contributions of genetic and genomic effects to NCP.
Fig. 2: Ecosystem-level effects of genetic variation in individual trees mediated through keystone species.
Fig. 3: Classic genetic methods can inform NCP.
Fig. 4: Some current approaches to preserve or increase intraspecific genetic variation.
Fig. 5: Potential impact of genomic engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems.
Fig. 6: Incorporating population and community genomics into NCP studies.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scheffers, B. R. et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people. Science 354, aaf7671 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cadotte, M. W., Carscadden, K. & Mirotchnick, N. Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1079–1087 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Faith, D. P. et al. Evosystem services: an evolutionary perspective on the links between biodiversity and human well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 66–74 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mimura, M. et al. Understanding and monitoring the consequences of human impacts on intraspecific variation. Evol. Appl. 10, 121–139 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rudman, S. M. et al. What genomic data can reveal about eco-evolutionary dynamics. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 9–15 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Des Roches, S. et al. The ecological importance of intraspecific variation. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 57–64 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Therkildsen, N. O. et al. Contrasting genomic shifts underlie parallel phenotypic evolution in response to fishing. Science 365, 487–490 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Crutsinger, G. M. et al. Plant genotypic diversity predicts community structure and governs an ecosystem process. Science 313, 966–968 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leigh, D. M., Hendry, A. P., Vázquez-Domínguez, E. & Friesen, V. L. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol. Appl. 12, 1505–1512 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Boeuf, G. Marine biodiversity characteristics. C. R. Biol. 334, 435–440 (2011).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Loss, S. R., Terwilliger, L. A. & Peterson, A. C. Assisted colonization: integrating conservation strategies in the face of climate change. Biol. Conserv. 144, 92–100 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aitken, S. N. & Whitlock, M. C. Assisted gene flow to facilitate local adaptation to climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 44, 367–388 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Witzenberger, K. A. & Hochkirch, A. Ex situ conservation genetics: a review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 1843–1861 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Novak, B. J. De-extinction. Genes 9, 548 (2018).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Muir, W. M. et al. Genome-wide assessment of worldwide chicken SNP genetic diversity indicates significant absence of rare alleles in commercial breeds. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17312–17317 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Beck, M. W. et al. The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs. Nat. Commun 9, 2186 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).

  18. Díaz, S. et al. The IPBES conceptual framework — connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 1–16 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hendry, A. P. Eco-evolutionary Dynamics (Princeton Univ. Press, 2017).

  20. Whitham, T. G. et al. Community and ecosystem genetics: a consequence of the extended phenotype. Ecology 84, 559–573 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Larkin, A. A. & Martiny, A. C. Microdiversity shapes the traits, niche space, and biogeography of microbial taxa. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 9, 55–70 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rodríguez-Verdugo, A., Buckley, J. & Stapley, J. The genomic basis of eco-evolutionary dynamics. Mol. Ecol. 26, 1456–1464 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen, E., Huang, X., Tian, Z., Wing, R. A. & Han, B. The genomics of oryza species provides insights into rice domestication and heterosis. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 70, 639–665 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bailey, J. K. et al. Beavers as molecular geneticists: a genetic basis to the foraging of an ecosystem engineer. Ecology 85, 603–608 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Whitham, T. G. et al. A framework for community and ecosystem genetics: from genes to ecosystems. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 510–523 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, S. M., Jellison, T. & Alper, H. S. Systematic and evolutionary engineering of a xylose isomerase-based pathway in Saccharomyces cerevisiae for efficient conversion yields. Biotechnol. Biofuels 7, 1–8 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gleizer, S. et al. Conversion of Escherichia coli to generate all biomass carbon from CO2. Cell 179, 1255–1263.e12 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhu, Y. et al. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406, 718–722 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. King, K. C. & Lively, C. M. Does genetic diversity limit disease spread in natural host populations. Heredity 109, 199–203 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson, S. J., Samuel, M. D., Johnson, C. J., Adams, M. & McKenzie, D. I. Emerging prion disease drives host selection in a wildlife population. Ecol. Appl. 22, 1050–1059 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Springbett, A. J., MacKenzie, K., Woolliams, J. A. & Bishop, S. C. The contribution of genetic diversity to the spread of infectious diseases in livestock populations. Genetics 165, 1465–1474 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. McGranahan, N. & Swanton, C. Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: past, present, and the future. Cell 168, 613–628 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Heap, I. M. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pestic. Sci. 51, 235–243 (1997).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Whalon, M. E., Mota-Sanchez, D. & Hollingworth, R. M. Global Pesticide Resistance in Arthropods (CABI, 2008).

  35. Hartley, C. J. et al. Amplification of DNA from preserved specimens shows blowflies were preadapted for the rapid evolution of insecticide resistance. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 8757–8762 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunlop, E. S., Eikeset, A. M. & Stenseth, N. C. From genes to populations: how fisheries-induced evolution alters stock productivity. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1860–1868 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Waples, R. S. & Audzijonyte, A. Fishery-induced evolution provides insights into adaptive responses of marine species to climate change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 217–224 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources (FAO, 2011).

  39. Darimont, C. T. et al. Human predators outpace other agents of trait change in the wild. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 952–954 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Philipp, D. P. et al. Fisheries-induced evolution in Largemouth Bass: linking vulnerability to angling, parental care, and fitness. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 82, 223–234 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Philipp, D. P. et al. Selection for vulnerability to angling in largemouth bass. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 138, 189–199 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Pigeon, G., Festa-Bianchet, M., Coltman, D. W. & Pelletier, F. Intense selective hunting leads to artificial evolution in horn size. Evol. Appl. 9, 521–530 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Conserv. 61, 1–10 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Carlson, S. M., Cunningham, C. J. & Westley, P. A. H. Evolutionary rescue in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 521–530 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hendry, A. P., Schoen, D. J., Wolak, M. E. & Reid, J. M. The contemporary evolution of fitness. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 457–476 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dakos, V. et al. Ecosystem tipping points in an evolving world. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 355–362 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Souza, F. F. C. et al. Uncovering prokaryotic biodiversity within aerosols of the pristine Amazon forest. Sci. Total Environ. 688, 83–86 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Suffredini, I. B., Barradas Paciencia, M. L., Varella, A. D. & Younes, R. N. Antibacterial activity of Brazilian Amazon plant extracts. Braz. J. Infect. Dis. 10, 400–402 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Blanco-Salas, J., Gutiérrez-García, L., Labrador-Moreno, J. & Ruiz-Téllez, T. Wild plants potentially used in human food in the protected area ‘Sierra Grande de Hornachos’ of Extremadura (Spain). Sustainability 11, 456 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sam Ma, Z., Li, L. & Zhang, Y. P. Defining individual-level genetic diversity and similarity profiles. Sci. Rep. 10, 5805 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Avolio, M. L., Beaulieu, J. M., Lo, E. Y. Y. & Smith, M. D. Measuring genetic diversity in ecological studies. Plant. Ecol. 213, 1105–1115 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Günther, T. & Coop, G. Robust identification of local adaptation from allele frequencies. Genetics 195, 205–220 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Booker, T. R., Jackson, B. C. & Keightley, P. D. Detecting positive selection in the genome. BMC Biol. 15, 1–10 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Dawkins, R. The Extended Phenotype – The Gene as the Unit of Selection (Oxford Univ. Press, 1983).

  55. Shuster, S. M., Lonsdorf, E. V., Wimp, G. M., Bailey, J. K. & Whitham, T. G. Community heritability measures the evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects on community structure. Evolution 60, 991–1003 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lynch, M. & Walsh, B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer Associates, 1998).

  57. Doudna, J. A. & Charpentier, E. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346, 1258096 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Knott, G. J. & Doudna, J. A. CRISPR-Cas guides the future of genetic engineering. Science 361, 866–869 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Skovmand, L. H. et al. Keystone genes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 689–700 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Pregitzer, C. C., Bailey, J. K., Hart, S. C. & Schweitzer, J. A. Soils as agents of selection: feedbacks between plants and soils alter seedling survival and performance. Evol. Ecol. 24, 1045–1059 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Bailey, J. K. et al. From genes to ecosystems: a synthesis of the effects of plant genetic factors across levels of organization. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364, 1607–1616 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Davies, C., Ellis, C. J., Iason, G. R. & Ennos, R. A. Genotypic variation in a foundation tree (Populus tremula L.) explains community structure of associated epiphytes. Biol. Lett. 10, 20140190 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Thompson, T. Q. et al. Anthropogenic habitat alteration leads to rapid loss of adaptive variation and restoration potential in wild salmon populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 177–186 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Ford, M. D. et al. Reviewing and synthesizing the state of the science regarding associations between adult run timing and specific genotypes in Chinook salmon and steelhead (US Department of Commerce, 2020).

  65. Leroy, C. J. et al. Salmon carcasses influence genetic linkages between forests and streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73, 910–920 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Crutsinger, G. M. et al. Testing a ‘genes-to-ecosystems’ approach to understanding aquatic-terrestrial linkages. Mol. Ecol. 23, 5888–5903 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lewontin, R. C. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Columbia Univ. Press, 1974).

  68. Csilléry, K., Rodríguez-Verdugo, A., Rellstab, C. & Guillaume, F. Detecting the genomic signal of polygenic adaptation and the role of epistasis in evolution. Mol. Ecol. 27, 606–612 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Zytynska, S. E., Fleming, S., Tétard-Jones, C., Kertesz, M. A. & Preziosi, R. F. Community genetic interactions mediate indirect ecological effects between a parasitoid wasp and rhizobacteria. Ecology 91, 1563–1568 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Carroll, S. P., Dingle, H. & Famula, T. R. Rapid appearance of epistasis during adaptive divergence following colonization. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, S80–S83 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Carroll, S. P. et al. And the beak shall inherit - evolution in response to invasion. Ecol. Lett. 8, 944–951 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Doust, A. N. et al. Beyond the single gene: how epistasis and gene-byenvironment effects influence crop domestication. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6178–6183 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Wellenreuther, M., Mérot, C., Berdan, E. & Bernatchez, L. Going beyond SNPs: the role of structural genomic variants in adaptive evolution and species diversification. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1203–1209 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ayala, D. et al. Association mapping desiccation resistance within chromosomal inversions in the African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1333–1342 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Christmas, M. J. et al. Chromosomal inversions associated with environmental adaptation in honeybees. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1358–1374 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Kess, T. et al. A migration-associated supergene reveals loss of biocomplexity in Atlantic cod. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav2461 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Berg, P. R. et al. Trans-oceanic genomic divergence of Atlantic cod ecotypes is associated with large inversions. Heredity 119, 418–428 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Frank, K. T., Petrie, B., Choi, J. S. & Leggett, W. C. Ecology: trophic cascades in a formerly cod-dominated ecosystem. Science 308, 1621–1623 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Prunier, J. et al. Gene copy number variations involved in balsam poplar (Populus balsamifera L.) adaptive variations. Mol. Ecol. 28, 1476–1490 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Youngson, N. A. & Whitelaw, E. Transgenerational epigenetic effects. Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 9, 233–257 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Miura, K. et al. OsSPL14 promotes panicle branching and higher grain productivity in rice. Nat. Genet. 42, 545–549 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Ong-Abdullah, M. et al. Loss of Karma transposon methylation underlies the mantled somaclonal variant of oil palm. Nature 525, 533–537 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Le Luyer, J. et al. Parallel epigenetic modifications induced by hatchery rearing in a Pacific salmon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 12964–12969 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Baerwald, M. R. et al. Migration-related phenotypic divergence is associated with epigenetic modifications in rainbow trout. Mol. Ecol. 25, 1785–1800 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Oke, K. B. et al. Recent declines in salmon body size impact ecosystems and fisheries. Nat. Commun. 11, 4155 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Davies, T. J., Urban, M. C., Rayfield, B., Cadotte, M. W. & Peres-Neto, P. R. Deconstructing the relationships between phylogenetic diversity and ecology: a case study on ecosystem functioning. Ecology 97, 2212–2222 (2016).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Cadotte, M. W. Phylogenetic diversity-ecosystem function relationships are insensitive to phylogenetic edge lengths. Funct. Ecol. 29, 718–723 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cadotte, M. W. Experimental evidence that evolutionarily diverse assemblages result in higher productivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8996–9000 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. MacIvor, J. S. et al. Manipulating plant phylogenetic diversity for green roof ecosystem service delivery. Evol. Appl. 11, 2014–2024 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  90. Clark, J. S., Scher, C. L. & Swift, M. The emergent interactions that govern biodiversity change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 17074–17083 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Crutsinger, G. M. A community genetics perspective: opportunities for the coming decade. N. Phytol. 210, 65–70 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Zuppinger-Dingley, D. et al. Selection for niche differentiation in plant communities increases biodiversity effects. Nature 515, 108–111 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. van Moorsel, S. J. et al. Community evolution increases plant productivity at low diversity. Ecol. Lett. 21, 128–137 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Wade, M. J. The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 185–195 (2007).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Genung, M. A., Bailey, J. K. & Schweitzer, J. A. Welcome to the neighbourhood: Interspecific genotype by genotype interactions in Solidago influence above- and belowground biomass and associated communities. Ecol. Lett. 15, 65–73 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Genung, M. A., Bailey, J. K. & Schweitzer, J. A. The afterlife of interspecific indirect genetic effects: genotype interactions alter litter quality with consequences for decomposition and nutrient dynamics. PLoS ONE 8, e53718 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Lankau, R. A. & Nodurft, R. N. An exotic invader drives the evolution of plant traits that determine mycorrhizal fungal diversity in a native competitor. Mol. Ecol. 22, 5472–5485 (2013).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Lankau, R. A., Nuzzo, V., Spyreas, G. & Davis, A. S. Evolutionary limits ameliorate the negative impact of an invasive plant. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 1253 (2010).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Lankau, R. A. Coevolution between invasive and native plants driven by chemical competition and soil biota. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 11240–11245 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Lankau, R. A., Bauer, J. T., Anderson, M. R. & Anderson, R. C. Long-term legacies and partial recovery of mycorrhizal communities after invasive plant removal. Biol. Invasions 16, 1979–1990 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Miller, E. T., Svanbäck, R. & Bohannan, B. J. M. Microbiomes as metacommunities: understanding host-associated microbes through metacommunity ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 33, 926–935 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Pearse, D. E., Miller, M. R., Abadía-Cardoso, A. & Garza, J. C. Rapid parallel evolution of standing variation in a single, complex, genomic region is associated with life history in steelhead/rainbow trout. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140012 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Narum, S. R., Genova, A. D., Micheletti, S. J. & Maass, A. Genomic variation underlying complex life-history traits revealed by genome sequencing in Chinook salmon. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180935 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Prince, D. J. et al. The evolutionary basis of premature migration in Pacific salmon highlights the utility of genomics for informing conservation. Sci. Adv. 3, e1603198 (2017).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Rey, O. et al. Linking epigenetics and biological conservation: towards a conservation epigenetics perspective. Funct. Ecol. 34, 414–427 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Hu, J. & Barrett, R. D. H. Epigenetics in natural animal populations. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 1612–1632 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Herrera, C. M., Medrano, M., Pérez, R., Bazaga, P. & Alonso, C. Within-plant heterogeneity in fecundity and herbivory induced by localized DNA hypomethylation in the perennial herb Helleborus foetidus. Am. J. Bot. 106, 798–806 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Cohen, S. N., Chang, A. C. Y., Boyer, H. W. & Helling, R. B. Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro (R factor/restriction enzyme/transformation/endonuclease/antibiotic resistance). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 70, 3240–3244 (1973).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Porteus, M. H. & Carroll, D. Gene targeting using zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 967–973 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Urnov, F. D., Rebar, E. J., Holmes, M. C., Zhang, H. S. & Gregory, P. D. Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 636–646 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Joung, J. K. & Sander, J. D. TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 49–55 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Burt, A. Site-specific selfish genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 921–928 (2003).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Zhang, Y., Massel, K., Godwin, I. D. & Gao, C. Applications and potential of genome editing in crop improvement. Genome Biol. 19, 210 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Charu, V. & Kaplan, D. L. Silk as a biomaterial. Prog. Polym. Sci. 100, 130–134 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Mosa, K. A., Saadoun, I., Kumar, K., Helmy, M. & Dhankher, O. P. Potential biotechnological strategies for the cleanup of heavy metals and metalloids. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 303 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Champer, J., Buchman, A. & Akbari, O. S. Cheating evolution: engineering gene drives to manipulate the fate of wild populations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 17, 146–159 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Rode, N. O., Estoup, A., Bourguet, D., Courtier-Orgogozo, V. & Débarre, F. Population management using gene drive: molecular design, models of spread dynamics and assessment of ecological risks. Conserv. Genet. 20, 671–690 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Esvelt, K. M. & Gemmell, N. J. Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLoS Biol. 15, 1–8 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Phuc, H. et al. Late-acting dominant lethal genetic systems and mosquito control. BMC Biol. 5, 11 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Campbell, K. J. et al. in Island Invasives: Scaling up to Meet the Challenge (eds Veitch, C. R., Clout, M. N., Martin, A. R., Russel, J. C. & West, C. J.) 6–14 (IUCN, 2019).

  121. Sherkow, J. S. & Greely, H. T. What if extinction is not forever? Science 340, 32–33 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Otoupal, P. B., Cordell, W. T., Bachu, V., Sitton, M. J. & Chatterjee, A. Multiplexed deactivated CRISPR-Cas9 gene expression perturbations deter bacterial adaptation by inducing negative epistasis. Commun. Biol. 1, 129 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Kraft, K. et al. Deletions, inversions, duplications: engineering of structural variants using CRISPR/Cas in mice. Cell Rep. 10, 833–839 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Springer, N. M. & Schmitz, R. J. Exploiting induced and natural epigenetic variation for crop improvement. Nat. Rev. Genet. 18, 563–575 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Reinders, J. et al. Compromised stability of DNA methylation and transposon immobilization in mosaic Arabidopsis epigenomes. Genes Dev. 23, 939–950 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Carrière, Y., Crowder, D. W. & Tabashnik, B. E. Evolutionary ecology of insect adaptation to Bt crops. Evol. Appl. 3, 561–573 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Fish, D. & Carpenter, S. R. Leaf litter and larval mosquito dynamics in tree-hole ecosystems. Ecology 63, 283–288 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Kraus, J. M. & Vonesh, J. R. Fluxes of terrestrial and aquatic carbon by emergent mosquitoes: a test of controls and implications for cross-ecosystem linkages. Oecologia 170, 1111–1122 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Sheehan, S. & Song, Y. S. Deep learning for population genetic inference. PLoS Comput. Biol. 12, e1004845 (2016).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. Schrider, D. R. & Kern, A. D. Supervised machine learning for population genetics: a new paradigm. Trends Genet. 34, 301–312 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Christin, S., Hervet, É. & Lecomte, N. Applications for deep learning in ecology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 10, 1632–1644 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Desjardins-Proulx, P., Laigle, I., Poisot, T. & Gravel, D. Ecological interactions and the Netflix problem. PeerJ 2017, e3644 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  133. Ruffley, M., Peterson, K., Week, B., Tank, D. C. & Harmon, L. J. Identifying models of trait-mediated community assembly using random forests and approximate Bayesian computation. Dep. Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5773 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Laikre, L. et al. Neglect of genetic diversity in implementation of the convention on biological diversity: conservation in practice and policy. Conserv. Biol. 24, 86–88 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Hoban, S. et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108654 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  136. Meyer, P. et al. Endogenous and environmental factors influence 35S promoter methylation of a maize A1 gene construct in transgenic petunia and its colour phenotype. Mol. Gen. Genet. 231, 345–352 (1992).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Morandin, L. A. & Winston, M. L. Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional, organic, and genetically modified canola. Ecol. Appl. 15, 871–881 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  138. Axelsson, E. P. et al. Leaf litter from insect-resistant transgenic trees causes changes in aquatic insect community composition. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 1472–1479 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  139. Axelsson, E. P., Hjältén, J. & LeRoy, C. J. Performance of insect-resistant Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-expressing aspens under semi-natural field conditions including natural herbivory in Sweden. For. Ecol. Manage. 264, 167–171 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  140. Sundström, L. F., Lõhmus, M., Tymchuk, W. E. & Devlin, R. H. Gene-environment interactions influence ecological consequences of transgenic animals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 3889–3894 (2007).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Sundström, L. F., Lôhmus, M., Johnsson, J. I. & Devlin, R. H. Growth hormone transgenic salmon pay for growth potential with increased predation mortality. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 350–352 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  142. Bodbyl Roels, S. A. & Kelly, J. K. Rapid evolution caused by pollinator loss in Mimulus guttatus. Evolution 65, 2541–2552 (2011).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Cheptou, P. O., Carrue, O., Rouifed, S. & Cantarel, A. Rapid evolution of seed dispersal in an urban environment in the weed Crepis sancta. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3796–3799 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. Polymenakou, P. N. Atmosphere: a source of pathogenic or beneficial microbes? Atmosphere 3, 87–102 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  145. Collins, S. Many possible worlds: expanding the ecological scenarios in experimental evolution. Evol. Biol. 38, 3–14 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  146. Archer, D. et al. Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 37, 117–134 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  147. Sunday, J. M. et al. Evolution in an acidifying ocean. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 117–125 (2014).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Harmon, L. J. et al. Evolutionary diversification in stickleback affects ecosystem functioning. Nature 458, 1167–1170 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Hairston, N. G. et al. Rapid evolution revealed by dormant eggs. Nature 401, 446–446 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  150. Bothe, H. & Słomka, A. Divergent biology of facultative heavy metal plants. J. Plant Physiol. 219, 45–61 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Reusch, T. B. H., Ehlers, A., Hammerli, A. & Worm, B. Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2826–2831 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Crutsinger, G. M., Souza, L. & Sanders, N. J. Intraspecific diversity and dominant genotypes resist plant invasions. Ecol. Lett. 11, 16–23 (2008).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Pelz, H. J. et al. The genetic basis of resistance to anticoagulants in rodents. Genetics 170, 1839–1847 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  154. National Research Council. Materials Research to Meet 21st Century Defense Needs (National Academies Press, 2003).

  155. Hutchison, W. D. et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 330, 222–225 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Leale, A. M. & Kassen, R. The emergence, maintenance, and demise of diversity in a spatially variable antibiotic regime. Evol. Lett. 2, 134–143 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. Grant, P. R. & Grant, B. R. Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches. Science 296, 707–711 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Grant, P. R. & Grant, B. R. Evolution of character displacement in Darwin’ s finches. Science 313, 224–226 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Lamichhaney, S. et al. Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing. Nature 518, 371–375 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  160. Constantino, V. Instinct extinct: the great pacific flyway. Leonardo 52, 5–11 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  161. Lewis, B., Grant, W. S., Brenner, R. E. & Hamazaki, T. Changes in size and age of chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha returning to Alaska. PLoS ONE 10, 132872 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  162. Schweitzer, J. A. et al. From genes to ecosystems: the genetic basis of condensed tannins and their role in nutrient regulation in a Populus model system. Ecosystems 11, 1005–1020 (2008).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  163. Díaz, S. et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359, 270–272 (2018). Introduction to the key concept of NCP.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank S. Rudman, V. Glynn, S. van Moorsel, the anonymous reviewers, I. Porth and R. Waples for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Redpath Museum, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Madlen Stange, Rowan D. H. Barrett & Andrew P. Hendry

Authors
  1. Madlen Stange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rowan D. H. Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew P. Hendry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew P. Hendry.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Genetics thanks I. Porth, R. Waples and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Related links

Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Biodiversity Targets: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/

Earth BioGenome Project: https://www.earthbiogenome.org

EpiDiverse European Training Network: https://epidiverse.eu/

Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents (GBIRd): https://www.geneticbiocontrol.org/

Genome 10K Project: https://genome10k.soe.ucsc.edu

Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Networks: https://geobon.org/

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment-report-biodiversity-ecosystem-services

Revive & Restore projects: https://reviverestore.org/projects/

Sustainable Development Goals: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Vertebrate Genomes Project: https://vertebrategenomesproject.org

Glossary

Intraspecific genetic variation

Variation in alleles of genes within and among populations of the same species.

Genetic diversity

Interspecific and intraspecific genetic variation.

Contemporary evolution

(Also known as rapid evolution). Natural selection that drives adaptive evolution in populations on timescales of less than a few hundred years.

Gene flow

Transfer of genetic variation from one population to another usually via migrating individuals.

Mutation

Change in the DNA sequence.

Genetic drift

Stochastic process altering the genetic variation in a population, usually reducing genetic diversity.

Population genetics

The study of genetic variation and evolutionary history within species using single-gene markers (population genetics) and multigene markers up to full genomes for consideration of structural and epigenetic variation (population genomics).

Community genetics

A community is the sum of populations formed by different species within a particular geographical area. Community genetics and genomics studies the effects of interactions among genomic variation between interacting species. Such interactions are mediated through phenotypes that are determined by heritable genetic variation and environmental influences.

Extended phenotypes

Phenotypes that include effects of genes on the environment, such as an organism’s behaviour or life history, or ecosystem.

Keystone species

A species with a disproportionate ecological effect in an ecosystem. Removal of that species would lead to a drastic change in the ecosystem.

Evolvability

The ability to evolve (that is, to produce genetic diversity on which selection can act).

Heterozygosity

Proportion of sites on the chromosome at which two randomly chosen copies differ in DNA sequence.

Additive genetic variance

The independent genetic effect of an allele on the phenotype of an individual organism resulting in deviation from the population mean phenotype. Additive genetic variance contributes to the evolvability of a population.

Dominance

A genetic interaction between the two alleles at a locus, such that the phenotype of heterozygotes deviates from the average of the two homozygotes.

Epistasis

Non-additive gene–gene interaction. A given allele might function well in one genetic background but poorly in another genetic background. We also refer to interspecific epistasis, in which alleles in different species interact (for example, gene–gene interactions between a native host and a parasite perform differently from an invasive host and the parasite genotype).

Biocontrol agent

In contrast to chemical control agents, biocontrol agents are natural predators or parasites of a pest.

Epialleles

Alternative chromatin states at a given locus, defined with respect to individuals in the population for a given time point and tissue type.

Population dynamics

A population is the sum of all individuals of the same species within a defined geographical area. Its dynamics are described as changes in the demographics of a given population (for example, age, composition or size) driven by biological and environmental factors.

Character displacement

Phenotypically (in a trait or ecological niche) similar but geographically or temporally co-occurring species diverge in the trait to minimize interspecific competition.

Allelopathic compound

As part of a plant’s defence mechanism, lethal biochemical compounds are released into the soil to suppress neighbouring organisms.

Mycorrhizal

A term describing the symbiotic interaction between a fungus and a plant’s rhizosphere.

Microbiome

The totality of microorganisms, their genetic information and the milieu in which they interact to perform a specific function.

Gene drives

Genetically engineered, synthetic genetic elements designed to increase in frequency over time in a population to propagate a certain gene variant.

Deep learning

A subdiscipline of machine learning, with the difference that no training data set is needed. The artificial neural network recognizes patterns from coarse to fine scale in multiple steps, so-called hidden layers, which compute increasingly more complex features by taking the results of preceding operations as input.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stange, M., Barrett, R.D.H. & Hendry, A.P. The importance of genomic variation for biodiversity, ecosystems and people. Nat Rev Genet 22, 89–105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00288-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-00288-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing