Explore the vast range of titles available.

Rivers are fascinating ecosystems in which the eco‐evolutionary dynamics of organisms are constrained by particular features, and biologists have developed a wealth of knowledge about freshwater biodiversity patterns. Over the last 10 years, our group used a holistic approach to contribute to this knowledge by focusing on the causes and consequences of intraspecific diversity in rivers. We conducted empirical works on temperate permanent rivers from southern France, and we broadened the scope of our findings using experiments, meta‐analyses, and simulations. We demonstrated that intraspecific (genetic) diversity follows a spatial pattern (downstream increase in diversity) that is repeatable across taxa (from plants to vertebrates) and river systems. This pattern can result from interactive processes that we teased apart using appropriate simulation approaches. We further experimentally showed that intraspecific diversity matters for the functioning of river ecosystems. It indeed affects not only community dynamics, but also key ecosystem functions such as litter degradation. This means that losing intraspecific diversity in rivers can yield major ecological effects. Our work on the impact of multiple human stressors on intraspecific diversity revealed that—in the studied river systems—stocking of domestic (fish) strains strongly and consistently alters natural spatial patterns of diversity. It also highlighted the need for specific analytical tools to tease apart spurious from actual relationships in the wild. Finally, we developed original conservation strategies at the basin scale based on the systematic conservation planning framework that appeared pertinent for preserving intraspecific diversity in rivers. We identified several important research avenues that should further facilitate our understanding of patterns of local adaptation in rivers, the identification of processes sustaining intraspecific biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships, and the setting of reliable conservation plans.

Conservation success depends on translating theory into practical guidance and tools that are relevant and useful for non‐scientists. While the complexity of population genetics has challenged the usage of straightforward metrics for conservation, several practical guidelines have been advanced, such as those regarding effective population size (Ne). Allendorf et al. highlight limitations of Ne as a metric for practical use. Specifically, they demonstrate that while Ne is sufficient for predicting heterozygosity, it is not predictive of the number of alleles, another key variable in conservation genetics. This has important implications for Ne‐based metrics, such as the Ne 500 indicator recently adopted in the Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As developers and advocates of the Ne 500 indicator, we agree with this assessment, and acknowledge that Ne does not comprehensively predict changes in allelic variation. In this article we briefly summarize several major points in Allendorf et al. and provide practical suggestions to better account for allelic variation during indicator assessments. These suggestions include reporting major declines in Nc as part of genetic assessments, clearly articulating the intention and caveats of the Ne 500 indicator, integrating simulations into genetic assessments, and assessing the number of genetically distinct populations. We conclude that the Ne 500 indicator remains a valuable metric uniquely capable of capturing critical aspects of a species' genetic status while remaining accessible and interpretable to policymakers and other non‐geneticists. By acknowledging the limitations of focusing solely on Ne and providing options for more thorough and nuanced understandings of genetic diversity, we hope to guide future usage of the Ne 500 indicator and help bridge the gap between conservation genetics theory and practice.

Global conservation targets aim to expand protected areas and maintain species’ genetic diversity. Whether protected areas capture genetic diversity is unclear. We examined this question using a global sample of nuclear population‐level microsatellite data comprising genotypes from 2513 sites, 134,183 individuals, and 176 mammal and marine fish species. The genetic diversity and differentiation of samples inside and outside protected areas were similar, with some evidence for higher diversity in protected areas for small‐bodied mammals. Mammal populations, particularly large species, tended to be more genetically diverse when near multiple protected areas, regardless of whether samples were collected in or outside protected areas. Older marine protected areas tended to capture more genetically diverse fish populations. However, limited data availability in many regions hinders the systematic incorporation of genetic diversity into protected area design. Focusing on minimizing population decline and maintaining connectivity between protected areas remain essential proxies for maintaining genetic diversity.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has heavily impacted academics’ professional and personal lives, forcing many research groups (labs) to shift from an academic system primarily based on in‐person work to an almost full‐time remote workforce during lockdowns. Labs are generally characterized by a strong lab culture that underpins all research and social activities of its members. Lab culture traditionally builds on the pillars of in‐person communication, knowledge sharing, and all social and professional activities that promote collaboration, team building, scientific productivity, and well‐being. Here, we use the experience of our research group facing the COVID‐19 pandemic to illustrate how proactively reinforcing lab culture and its positive outcomes have been essential to our lab when transitioning from an in‐person to a remote lab environment, and through its ongoing evolution toward a hybrid remote/in‐person model. We argue that the proactive promotion of lab culture in research groups can foster academic resilience during crises, helping research groups to maintain their capacity to conduct scientific activities while preserving a sustainable life/work balance and a healthy mental condition. The Covid‐19 pandemic crisis has forced many research groups to move from an academic system based on in‐person work and characterized by a strong lab culture to a fully remote workforce. We illustrate how reinforcing lab culture has been essential for our research group when transitioning from an in‐person to a remote lab. We argue that proactively promoting lab culture is essential for supporting academic resilience during crises and to help research groups maintain scientific activity and preserve a sustainable life/work balance.

The rapidly emerging field of macrogenetics focuses on analysing publicly accessible genetic datasets from thousands of species to explore large-scale patterns and predictors of intraspecific genetic variation. Facilitated by advances in evolutionary biology, technology, data infrastructure, statistics and open science, macrogenetics addresses core evolutionary hypotheses (such as disentangling environmental and life-history effects on genetic variation) with a global focus. Yet, there are important, often overlooked, limitations to this approach and best practices need to be considered and adopted if macrogenetics is to continue its exciting trajectory and reach its full potential in fields such as biodiversity monitoring and conservation. Here, we review the history of this rapidly growing field, highlight knowledge gaps and future directions, and provide guidelines for further research.Leigh and colleagues describe the potential of the emerging field of macrogenetics to improve conservation and biodiversity management. Challenges preventing the field from reaching its full promise are highlighted and possible solutions and a framework for future macrogenetic studies are proposed.

Intraspecific diversity informs the demographic and evolutionary histories of populations, and should be a main conservation target. Although approaches exist for identifying relevant biological conservation units, attempts to identify priority conservation areas for intraspecific diversity are scarce, especially within a multi-specific framework. We used neutral molecular data on six European freshwater fish species (Squalius cephalus, Phoxinus phoxinus, Barbatula barbatula, Gobio occitaniae, Leuciscus burdigalensis and Parachondrostoma toxostoma) sampled at the riverscape scale (i.e. the Garonne-Dordogne river basin, France) to determine hot- and coldspots of genetic diversity, and to identify priority conservation areas using a systematic conservation planning approach. We demonstrate that systematic conservation planning is efficient for identifying priority areas representing a predefined part of the total genetic diversity of a whole landscape. With the exception of private allelic richness (PA), classical genetic diversity indices (allelic richness, genetic uniqueness) were poor predictors for identifying priority areas. Moreover, we identified weak surrogacies among conservation solutions found for each species, implying that conservation solutions are highly species-specific. Nonetheless, we showed that priority areas identified using intraspecific genetic data from multiple species provide more effective conservation solutions than areas identified for single species or on the basis of traditional taxonomic criteria.

Conservation success depends on translating theory into practical guidance and tools that are relevant and useful for non‐scientists. While the complexity of population genetics has challenged the usage of straightforward metrics for conservation, several practical guidelines have been advanced, such as those regarding effective population size ( N e ). Allendorf et al. highlight limitations of N e as a metric for practical use. Specifically, they demonstrate that while N e is sufficient for predicting heterozygosity, it is not predictive of the number of alleles, another key variable in conservation genetics. This has important implications for N e ‐based metrics, such as the N e 500 indicator recently adopted in the Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. As developers and advocates of the N e 500 indicator, we agree with this assessment, and acknowledge that N e does not comprehensively predict changes in allelic variation. In this article we briefly summarize several major points in Allendorf et al. and provide practical suggestions to better account for allelic variation during indicator assessments. These suggestions include reporting major declines in N c as part of genetic assessments, clearly articulating the intention and caveats of the N e 500 indicator, integrating simulations into genetic assessments, and assessing the number of genetically distinct populations. We conclude that the N e 500 indicator remains a valuable metric uniquely capable of capturing critical aspects of a species' genetic status while remaining accessible and interpretable to policymakers and other non‐geneticists. By acknowledging the limitations of focusing solely on N e and providing options for more thorough and nuanced understandings of genetic diversity, we hope to guide future usage of the N e 500 indicator and help bridge the gap between conservation genetics theory and practice.

Effective population size ( N e ) is a pivotal evolutionary parameter with crucial implications in conservation practice and policy. Genetic methods to estimate N e have been preferred over demographic methods because they rely on genetic data rather than time‐consuming ecological monitoring. Methods based on linkage disequilibrium (LD), in particular, have become popular in conservation as they require a single sampling and provide estimates that refer to recent generations. A software program based on the LD method, GONE, looks particularly promising to estimate contemporary and recent‐historical N e (up to 200 generations in the past). Genomic datasets from non‐model species, especially plants, may present some constraints to the use of GONE, as linkage maps and reference genomes are seldom available, and SNP genotyping is usually based on reduced‐representation methods. In this study, we use empirical datasets from four plant species to explore the limitations of plant genomic datasets when estimating N e using the algorithm implemented in GONE, in addition to exploring some typical biological limitations that may affect N e estimation using the LD method, such as the occurrence of population structure. We show how accuracy and precision of N e estimates potentially change with the following factors: occurrence of missing data, limited number of SNPs/individuals sampled, and lack of information about the location of SNPs on chromosomes, with the latter producing a significant bias, previously unexplored with empirical data. We finally compare the N e estimates obtained with GONE for the last generations with the contemporary N e estimates obtained with the programs currentNe and NeEstimator.

Prioritizing and making efficient conservation plans for threatened populations requires information at both evolutionary and ecological timescales. Nevertheless, few studies integrate multidisciplinary approaches, mainly because of the difficulty for conservationists to assess simultaneously the evolutionary and ecological status of populations. Here, we sought to demonstrate how combining genetic and demographic analyses allows prioritizing and initiating conservation plans. To do so, we combined snapshot microsatellite data and a 30‐year‐long demographic survey on a threatened freshwater fish species (Parachondrostoma toxostoma) at the river basin scale. Our results revealed low levels of genetic diversity and weak effective population sizes (<63 individuals) in all populations. We further detected severe bottlenecks dating back to the last centuries (200–800 years ago), which may explain the differentiation of certain populations. The demographic survey revealed a general decrease in the spatial distribution and abundance of P. toxostoma over the last three decades. We conclude that demo‐genetic approaches are essential for (1) identifying populations for which both evolutionary and ecological extinction risks are high; and (2) proposing conservation plans targeted toward these at risk populations, and accounting for the evolutionary history of populations. We suggest that demo‐genetic approaches should be the norm in conservation practices. We combined genetic and demographic data from a threatened freshwater fish species (Parachondrostoma toxostoma) at the river basin scale for conservation purposes. Genetic diversity and effective population sizes are very low, probably due to the strong genetic bottlenecks detected in this study. The species spatial distribution and abundance also decreased during the last decades.

Genetic diversity among and within populations of all species is necessary for people and nature to survive and thrive in a changing world. Over the past three years, commitments for conserving genetic diversity have become more ambitious and specific under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). This Perspective article comments on how goals and targets of the GBF have evolved, the improvements that are still needed, lessons learned from this process, and connections between goals and targets and the actions and reporting that will be needed to maintain, protect, manage and monitor genetic diversity. It is possible and necessary that the GBF strives to maintain genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, to restore genetic connectivity, and to develop national genetic conservation strategies, and to report on these using proposed, feasible indicators.