Explore the vast range of titles available.

Co‐occurrence of closely related species is often explained through resource partitioning, where key morphological or life‐history traits evolve under strong divergent selection. In bumble bees (genus Bombus), differences in tongue lengths, nest sites, and several life‐history traits are the principal factors in resource partitioning. However, the buff‐tailed and white‐tailed bumble bee (Bombus terrestris and B. lucorum respectively) are very similar in morphology and life history, but their ranges nevertheless partly overlap, raising the question how they are ecologically divergent. What little is known about the environmental factors determining their distributions stems from studies in Central and Western Europe, but even less information is available about their distributions in Eastern Europe, where different subspecies occur. Here, we aimed to disentangle the broad habitat requirements and associated distributions of these species in Romania and Bulgaria. First, we genetically identified sampled individuals from many sites across the study area. We then not only computed species distributions based on presence‐only data, but also expanded on these models using relative abundance data. We found that B. terrestris is a more generalist species than previously thought, but that B. lucorum is restricted to forested areas with colder and wetter climates, which in our study area are primarily found at higher elevations. Both vegetation parameters such as annual mean Leaf Area Index and canopy height, as well as climatic conditions, were important in explaining their distributions. Although our models based on presence‐only data suggest a large overlap in their respective distributions, results on their relative abundance suggest that the two species replace one another across an environmental gradient correlated to elevation. The inclusion of abundance enhances our understanding of the distribution of these species, supporting the emerging recognition of the importance of abundance data in species distribution modeling. We used genetic barcoding and species distribution models to disentangle the habitat requirements of two closely related bumble bee species in Romania and Bulgaria. We found that Bombus terrestris is a more generalist species than previously thought, but that B. lucorum is restricted to forested areas with colder and wetter climates. Models based on presence‐only data suggest a large overlap in their respective distributions, but results on their relative abundance suggest that the two species replace one another across an environmental gradient correlated to elevation.

Background The environment is a strong driver of genetic structure in many natural populations, yet often neglected in population genetic studies. This may be a particular problem in vagile species, where subtle structure cannot be explained by limitations to dispersal. Consequently, these species might falsely be considered quasi-panmictic and hence potentially mismanaged. A species this might apply to, is the buff-tailed bumble bee ( Bombus terrestris ), an economically important and widespread pollinator, which is considered to be quasi-panmictic at mainland continental scales. Here we aimed to (i) quantify genetic structure in 21+ populations of the buff-tailed bumble bee, sampled throughout two Eastern European countries, and (ii) analyse the degree to which structure is explained by environmental differences, habitat permeability and geographic distance. Using 12 microsatellite loci, we characterised populations of this species with Fst analyses, complemented by discriminant analysis of principal components and Bayesian clustering approaches. We then applied generalized dissimilarity modelling to simultaneously assess the informativeness of geographic distance, habitat permeability and environmental differences among populations in explaining divergence. Results Genetic structure of the buff-tailed bumble bee quantified by means of Fst was subtle and not detected by Bayesian clustering. Discriminant analysis of principal components suggested insignificant but still noticeable structure that slightly exceeded estimates obtained through Fst analyses. As expected, geographic distance and habitat permeability were not informative in explaining the spatial pattern of genetic divergence. Yet, environmental variables related to temperature, vegetation and topography were highly informative, explaining between 33 and 39% of the genetic variation observed. Conclusions In contrast to previous studies reporting quasi-panmixia in continental populations of this species, we demonstrated the presence of subtle population structure related to environmental heterogeneity. Environmental data proved to be highly useful in unravelling the drivers of genetic structure in this vagile and opportunistic species. We highlight the potential of including these data to obtain a better understanding of population structure and the processes driving it in species considered to be quasi-panmictic.

Because it is impossible to comprehensively characterize biodiversity at all levels of organization, conservation prioritization efforts need to rely on surrogates. As species distribution maps of relished groups as well as high-resolution remotely sensed data increasingly become available, both types of surrogates are commonly used. A good surrogate should represent as much of biodiversity as possible, but it often remains unclear to what extent this is the case. Here, we aimed to address this question by assessing how well bird species and habitat diversity represent one another. We conducted our study in Romania, a species-rich country with high landscape heterogeneity where bird species distribution data have only recently started to become available. First, we prioritized areas for conservation based on either 137 breeding bird species or 36 habitat classes, and then evaluated their reciprocal surrogacy performance. Second, we examined how well these features are represented in already existing protected areas. Finally, we identified target regions of high conservation value for the potential expansion of the current network of reserves (as planned under the new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030). We found a limited reciprocal surrogacy performance, with bird species performing slightly better as a conservation surrogate for habitat diversity than vice versa. We could also show that areas with a high conservation value based on habitat diversity were represented better in already existing protected areas than areas based on bird species, which varied considerably between species. Our results highlight that taxonomic and environmental (i.e., habitat types) data may perform rather poorly as reciprocal surrogates, and multiple sources of data are required for a full evaluation of protected areas expansion.

Introductions of non‐native species can pose serious threats to native populations and ecosystems. However, the impact of introduced species depends on intrinsic characteristics, local habitat conditions, and the interaction with native species. Case‐specific management strategies may therefore be required. Using phenotypic characters and molecular markers for species identification, we provide insights into an artificial hybrid zone between two closely related newt species, the native Triturus cristatus and the introduced T. carnifex, near Tübingen, south‐west Germany. Our analyses revealed a central Italian origin of the non‐native T. carnifex and suggested their sustained presence in the study area for at least six years, probably much longer. In some ponds, extensive hybridization with native T. cristatus was detected. However, we found no evidence for a displacement of the native species by its non‐native congener. The gradient from pure T. carnifex to pure T. cristatus currently extends over 7 km. A future expansion of the hybrid zone and swamping of a neighboring T. cristatus meta‐population appears unlikely under the local configuration of breeding ponds. We propose to monitor the hybrid zone using genetic markers for evaluating the direction and speed of gene flow, complemented by capture‐recapture studies to reveal trends in species‐specific population sizes. To protect the native T. cristatus, we recommend practitioners to maintain their habitats, for example, by preventing illegal release of gold fish, by counteracting early drying of the breeding ponds, and by regularly cutting back trees and shrubs along the shoreline. Closely related non‐native species can affect native congeners by admixture and genetic replacement. We provide a case study, documenting hybridization of non‐native Triturus carnifex with native T. cristatus but no replacement of the native species. A future expansion of the hybrid zone and swamping of a neighbouring T. cristatus meta‐population appears unlikely under the local configuration of breeding ponds.

Both neutral and adaptive evolutionary processes can cause population divergence, but their relative contributions remain unclear. We investigated the roles of these processes in population divergence in house sparrows (Passer domesticus) from Romania and Bulgaria, regions characterized by high landscape heterogeneity compared to Western Europe. We asked whether morphological divergence, complemented with genetic data in this human commensal species, was best explained by environmental variation, geographic distance, or landscape resistance—the effort it takes for an individual to disperse from one location to the other—caused by either natural or anthropogenic barriers. Using generalized dissimilarity modeling, a matrix regression technique that fits biotic beta diversity to both environmental predictors and geographic distance, we found that a small set of climate and vegetation variables explained up to ~30% of the observed divergence, whereas geographic and resistance distances played much lesser roles. Our results are consistent with signals of selection on morphological traits and of isolation by adaptation in genetic markers, suggesting that selection by natural environmental conditions shapes population divergence in house sparrows. Our study thus contributes to a growing body of evidence that adaptive evolution may be a major driver of diversification. Both neutral and selective processes can cause population divergence, but their relative contributions as drivers of this process remain unclear. We investigated their relative roles in population divergence in house sparrows (Passer domesticus) from Romania and Bulgaria. Our results suggest that habitat heterogeneity, and not geographic and resistance distance, best explains population divergence, thus contributing to a growing body of evidence that adaptive evolution may be a major driver of diversification.

Genetic diversity is essential for maintaining healthy populations and ecosystems. Several approaches have recently been developed to evaluate population genetic trends without necessarily collecting new genetic data. Such “genetic diversity indicators” enable rapid, large-scale evaluation across dozens to thousands of species. Empirical genetic studies, when available, provide detailed information that is important for management, such as estimates of gene flow, inbreeding, genetic erosion and adaptation. In this article, we argue that the development and advancement of genetic diversity indicators is a complementary approach to genetic studies in conservation biology, but not a substitute. Genetic diversity indicators and empirical genetic data can provide different information for conserving genetic diversity. Genetic diversity indicators enable affordable tracking, reporting, prioritization and communication, although, being proxies, do not provide comprehensive evaluation of the genetic status of a species. Conversely, genetic methods offer detailed analysis of the genetic status of a given species or population, although they remain challenging to implement for most species globally, given current capacity and resourcing. We conclude that indicators and genetic studies are both important for genetic conservation actions and recommend they be used in combination for conserving and monitoring genetic diversity.

Background: The environment is a strong driver of genetic structure in many natural populations, yet often neglected in population genetic studies. This may be a particular problem in vagile species, where subtle structure cannot be explained by limitations to dispersal. These species might falsely be considered panmictic and hence potentially mismanaged. Here we analysed the genetic structure in an economically important and widespread pollinator, the buff-tailed bumble bee (Bombus terrestris), which is considered to be quasi-panmictic at mainland continental scales. We first quantified population structure in Romania and Bulgaria with spatially implicit Fst and Bayesian clustering analyses. We then incorporated environmental information to infer the influence of the permeability of the habitat matrix between populations (resistance distances) as well as environmental differences among sites in explaining population divergence. Results: Genetic structure of the buff-tailed bumble bee was subtle and not detected by Bayesian clustering. As expected, geographic distance and habitat permeability were not informative in explaining the spatial pattern of genetic divergence. Yet, environmental variables related to temperature, vegetation and topography were highly informative, explaining between 33 and 39% of the genetic variation observed. Conclusions: Where in the past spatially implicit approaches had repeatedly failed, incorporating environmental data proved to be highly beneficial in detecting and unravelling the drivers of genetic structure in this vagile and opportunistic species. Indeed, structure followed a pattern of isolation by environment, where the establishment of dispersers is limited by environmental differences among populations, resulting in the disruption of genetic connectivity and the divergence of populations through genetic drift and divergent natural selection. With this work, we highlight the potential of incorporating environmental differences among population locations to complement the more traditional approach of isolation by geographic distance, in order to obtain a holistic understanding of the processes driving structure in natural populations. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Because it is impossible to comprehensively characterize biodiversity at all levels of organization, conservation prioritization efforts need to rely on surrogates. As species distribution maps of relished groups as well as high-resolution remotely sensed data increasingly become available, both types of surrogates are commonly used. A good surrogate should represent as much of biodiversity as possible, but it often remains unclear to what extent this is the case. Here, we aimed to address this question by assessing how well bird species and habitat diversity represent one another. We conducted our study in Romania, a species-rich country with high landscape heterogeneity where bird species distribution data have only recently started to become available. First, we prioritized areas for conservation based on either 137 breeding bird species or 36 habitat classes, and then evaluated their reciprocal surrogacy performance. Second, we examined how well these features are represented in already existing protected areas. Finally, we identified target regions of high conservation value for the potential expansion of the current network of reserves (as planned under the new EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030). We found that bird species were a better surrogate for habitat diversity than vice versa. Highly ranked areas based on habitat diversity were represented better than areas based on bird species, which varied considerably between species. Our results highlight that taxonomic and environmental (i.e., habitat types) data may perform rather poorly as reciprocal surrogates, and multiple sources of data are required for a full evaluation of protected areas expansion.