부산대학교 도서관

Keywords: allelic richness; evolutionary processes; microsatellites; prioritization; protected-area systems; reserve selection; systematic conservation planning; refugia; microsatelites; planeacion sistematica de la conservacion; priorizacion; procesos evolutivos; refugios; riqueza de alelos; seleccion de reservas; sistemas de areas protegidas; c-a1/2a*a a[cedilla][degrees]a*[bar]; ae1/4ae c[umlaut]; a3/4[R]a'ae; a1/4aae[logical not] a*; a ae[currency]a*c[sup.3]'c'; a ae[currency]a*eae[c]; c[sup.3]'c'a ae[currency]es.a; e e3/4ae Abstract Protected-area systems should conserve intraspecific genetic diversity. Because genetic data require resources to obtain, several approaches have been proposed for generating plans for protected-area systems (prioritizations) when genetic data are not available. Yet such surrogate-based approaches remain poorly tested. We evaluated the effectiveness of potential surrogate-based approaches based on microsatellite genetic data collected across the Iberian Peninsula for 7 amphibian and 3 reptilian species. Long-term environmental suitability did not effectively represent sites containing high genetic diversity (allelic richness). Prioritizations based on long-term environmental suitability had similar performance to random prioritizations. Geographic distances and resistance distances based on contemporary environmental suitability were not always effective surrogates for identification of combinations of sites that contain individuals with different genetic compositions. Our results demonstrate that population genetic data based on commonly used neutral markers can inform prioritizations, and we could not find an adequate substitute. Conservation planners need to weigh the potential benefits of genetic data against their acquisition costs. Article Note: Article impact statement: Conservation plans based on supposed surrogates of genetic data can perform much worse than those based directly on genetic data. CAPTION(S): Sampling localities (Appendix S1), genetic data cleaning procedures (Appendix S2), genetic diversity metrics (Appendices S3-S6), multivariate environmental similarity surface map comparing contemporary and Last Glacial Maximum conditions (Appendix S7), contemporary environmental data (Appendix S8), historical climatic data (Appendices S9-S14), environmental niche models (Appendices S15-S20), contemporary, historic, and long-term environmental suitability maps (Appendices S21-S29), sites with high allelic richness (Appendix S30), distance-based reserve selection procedure (Appendix S31), relationships between the genetic diversity metrics and their supposed surrogates (Appendices S32-S34), spatial prioritizations (Appendices S35-S84), and data that underpin results for site-scale genetic diversity (Appendices S85-S89) and broad-scale genetic diversity (Appendices S90-S94) are available online. The authors are solely responsible for the content and functionality of these materials. Queries (other than absence of the material) should be directed to the corresponding author. Code and data (except for atlas, climatic, genetic, geographic range, and soil bedrock data) are archived in a Zenodo digital repository (Hanson et al. 2020). Byline: Jeffrey O. Hanson, Ana Verissimo, Guillermo Velo-Anton, Adam Marques, Miguel Camacho-Sanchez, Inigo Martinez-Solano, Helena Goncalves, Fernando Sequeira, Hugh P. Possingham, Silvia B. Carvalho