https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224255

Might be of help

Thanks, Tusheema!

Interesting and important question! Two thoughts --

1) the legal system (the Endangered Species Act) is designed only to protect entities of above a certain taxonomic rank.

2) I'm aware of very few population-level datasets on non-endangered or threatened taxa that have the level of sampling and the depth of coverage required to identify such areas of diversity.

I'm hopeful it will become cheaper and easier to generate these sorts of datasets and have a more nuanced understanding of diversity across the landscape!

In general, I believe that we should prioritize the protection of genetically distinct populations, for we have no alternatives once wo lost them.

This question made me think:

'How would we apply this to humans?' and

What happens if we (can) track what happens without human intervention, how is their 'protection' at this level of diversity?

What does protection mean within the anthropocene? What else is being protected as we protect? What qualities of the human arise as crtical to this project of protection which may, if critiqued, mean we need to think of our rationale in wider contexts?

This may not be what you are looking for, but I trust it sets your heart racing!

I think that the same principle is applicable for human beings.

If we let all of creatures free with no human intervention, the mechanism of natural selection due to Darwin would proceed.

Susan Fawcett Our current system overemphasizes the ESA and deemphasizes ecosystem protection (e.g. Single species management for Kirtland's warbler in jack pine barrens where many rare species occur).

The main reason I bring this up is for bedrock glade conservation in the western U.P. In an older landscape these habitats would very likely have endemic species (e.g. Bibb County Glades, AL, and the glades in northern Georgia). We don't have endemic species in our young system, yet I suspect that the disjunct populations we have are subject to different natural selection pressures and are on different evolutionary trajectories. I am planning to use five-lined skinks as my focal species for population genetics work. I think it's very likely I can demonstrate that it's a distinct lineage and that its habitat is worthy of a high level of protection. I could have chosen an insect or lichen, but as we know, charismatic species tend to be more successful flagships for conservation efforts.

Once taxonomy sets up a new process to describe and name ecotypes, then we can start seeing the importance of conserving the local flora and fauna, because it is better adapted for survival in those local conditions. I looked into the ecotype question here in California, and using Common Garden studies, found that to preserve the diversity of ecotypes here in California, we would need to set up at least 1,000 in-situ genetic conservation areas, spaced about 15-25 miles apart in each direction. The Common Garden of one native grass from the nine counties of the SF Bay area, showed ecotype variations that were so distinct, that you could see evolution in real time, with isolated populations morphing to fit better into environmental extremes for the species, like sand dunes and serpentine soils. You can see from my diagram from https://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.three.html the "budding off" of ecotypes that are in the process of evolving onto new species. If you check your native grasses, those "species" may have already changed into new species by changing their chromosome numbers---they may taxonomically look like the same species, by have evolved by isolating themselves both physically and genetically, since they can no longer reproduce having different chromosome numbers.

Awesome! Thanks, Craig Carlton Dremann Most of our endemic plants here in Michigan have arisen from changes in chromosome numbers. You make me wonder if this phenomenon is much more widespread than we perceive, resulting in many cryptic, undescribed species. Fascinating stuff.

The Bromus carinatus example is very cool! There are also crazy examples of rapid evolution for serpentine tolerance in the non-native grass Aegilops truncialis. This is also highly relevant in biodiversity hotspots like California where plants that are ecologically distinct are at species or subspecies rank and currently have legal protection but may prove to be more akin to 'ecotypes' and loss of taxonomic status could result in development of their rare habitats (this is especially problematic in coastal southern California).

In 1998 co-authored a paper with Dr. Stebbins at https://www.ecoseeds.com/stebbins.html --article No. 267. Stebbins, G. Ledyard and Craig C. Dremann. 1998. Jepson Manual chromosome numbers may indicate new "cryptic" native grass species. GRASSLANDS 8 (3): 4-5 (California Native Grass Association) we wrote, that out of 300 California native grasses already described, because of the changes in chromosome numbers, 100 new species would need to be teased out and described. We really need to put together a taxonomic method to start describing these ecotypes.

My paper about ecotypes at https://www.ecoseeds.com/juicy.gossip.three.html I list the names that the father of ecotypes proposed, Gote Turesson based on the habitats that they were attached to--Table 1--Turesson's environmental extremes that create ecotypes. 1.) Typical local lowland or inland populations that all other ecotypes were compared with = typical. 2.) Limestone or other rock formations (calcareous) = afar. 3.) Shifting dune populations (prostrate, fast-growing stolons to avoid being buried by sand) = arenarius. 4.) Coastal bluffs or stationary dunes, with fast drying soils = campestris 5.) Elevational ecotypic varieties, a.) Subalpine = subalpinus. b.) Alpine = alpinus. 6.) Latitudinal ecotypic variation.= (no name) 7.) Edges of the species range (i.e. the extreme northern and southern points of the area of distribution).= (no name) 8.) Saline soils (fleshy leaves) = salinus.

Interesting question. Generally speaking, such distinct populations of such regions that lack endemic species should be prioritized best fit to conserve, through existing norms and regulations for which I believe these underlying few reasons below: 1). It should futher serve a genetic from microscopic to macro' perspective a define detail "surprising update may await" why and how it might have occurred and knowledgeable yet to be known to man. 2). Several factors involved since origin what force/constrain them to remain aloof to this day. 3). In broad sense, tedious and meticulously by inclusive model(s) need to generate for best explanation however owing to natural or artificial phenomena (as a matter of fact keeping in mind the diversity, why no or scanty information to date why it let limited to small confinement of geographical distributions still including the natural history, phylogenetic or molecular data etc. say, to highlight mention be made under these living fossils an example of rare plant species of Lilium mackliniae (Liliaceae), two rare species Globba spathulata and Hemiorchis pantlingii (Zingiberaceae) in Dampa Tiger Reserve in Mizoram, India. Some animals of anuran species such as the Leptobrachella tamdil and Megophrys serchhipii (Megophryidae) or Duttaphrynus chandai (Bufonidae) or the endemic and endangered Eld's deer, Rucervus eldii eldii (Cervidae) in Manipur, India. More recently crucial studies led to a critically endangered and new primate species discovered in Myanmar, Trachypithecus popa (Cercopithecidae) where the new species was described through extensive genetic and morphological studies. 4). Hence, mere understanding to scrutinize the best research ethical and go for conservation management will go long term thus proved. 5). Finally in conclusion, in view of the current status and near future prospect, conservationists should adhere an eco-friendly as to why and how should be prioritized, else history has it any inadvertent or predetermined actions have negatively huge adverse impact which one afford to trigger or invite and compelled to rather later, find whatever best alternatives. Many thanks 👍

The species concept is quite artificial. There are literally dozens of concepts, many of which cannot be reconciled with each other. A species is whatever the taxonomic specialists call a species. All populations are unique to a certain degree. You will have a tough time protecting any particular population. Conservation is often based on large and well-known organisms. Red lists are a clumsy tool to protect wildlife, and they often fail. You may not be allowed to collect a specimen, but there is always a way to develop its habitat. Species-based protection fails completely when addressing invertebrates IMO. Their r-value are generally so high that you can neither collect nor spray them into extinction. But when the habitat is gone, so is that population. Habitat-based protection is the way to go, but that is exactly what people in charge do not want.

Christof Stumpf You are spot on! Individual species (or taxa) protection often fails, yet it's the model we have adopted for conservation. It can work effectively when the right keystone or indicator species is used (e.g. gopher tortoises). In terms of delivering a sales pitch for conservation, it can be very advantageous to use a species that people can develop an emotional connection to and use to gain support in protecting a whole community. It would certainly be better to say, look, this rare habitat is under threat and has lots of unique lineages, let protect it! Unfortunately, it's harder to package and sell that.

In Queensland, Australia, P. Sattler and R. Williams approached this question by identifying a number of distinctive "regional ecosystems" and then defining which ones were adequately protected in national parks and other conservation reserves. Regional ecosystems that occurred mainly on private property were deemed to be at risk of clearing or grazing. Their conclusions became the basis for acquisition by the State government of land for national parks.

One problem with targeting endemic species or genotypes for protection is that the target species can never be more than a tiny percentage of the species present at a locality, even though most of them are microscopic in size. An approach that targets ecological associations (an area with a distinctive combination of soil, climate and vegetation), partly avoids this problem as it captures systems with a large number of interdependent species.

Thanks Geoff! You get at the main point, which is we should be protecting whole ecosystems, particularly those that are rare and that harbor unique genotypes. Unfortunately, the framework for protection (at least in the countries I am aware of) is built around a small suit of individual species, which vary greatly in acting as keystone or umbrella species. In the rare habitat that I study, I have elected to do genetics work on a lizard, which I hope will prove to be a unique population and enable us to achieve greater protection for that ecosystem.