De‐extinction and evolution

Cloning for the Twenty-First Century and Its Place in Endangered Species Conservation

Cloning as it relates to the animal kingdom generally refers to the production of genetically identical individuals. Because cloning is increasingly the subject of renewed attention as a tool for rescuing endangered or extinct species, it seems timely to dissect the role of the numerous reproductive techniques encompassed by this term in animal species conservation. Although cloning is typically associated with somatic cell nuclear transfer, the recent advent of additional techniques that allow genome replication without genetic recombination demands that the use of induced pluripotent stem cells to generate gametes or embryos, as well as older methods such as embryo splitting, all be included in this discussion. Additionally, the phenomenon of natural cloning (e.g., a subset of fish, birds, invertebrates, and reptilian species that reproduce via parthenogenesis) must also be pointed out. Beyond the biology of these techniques are practical considerations and the ethics of using cloning and associated procedures in endangered or extinct species. All of these must be examined in concert to determine whether cloning has a place in species conservation. Therefore, we synthesize progress in cloning and associated techniques and dissect the practical and ethical aspects of these methods as they pertain to endangered species conservation.

What has biotelemetry ever done for avian translocations?

Species translocation is a popular approach in contemporary ecological restoration and rewilding. Improving the efficacy of conservation translocation programmes requires a combination of robust data from comparable populations, population viability modelling and post-release monitoring. Biotelemetry is becoming an ever more accessible means to collect some of the high-resolution information on the ecology and behaviour of founding populations that such evaluations require. Here, we review 81 published case studies to consider how this capability could increase the success of avian translocations. We found that 67 translocations favoured traditional radio telemetry, with surveillance focussing mostly on immediate post-release dispersal, survival and breeding attempts. Just 28 projects tracked founder individuals for longer than 1 year and no studies referenced pre-release sampling or planning using biotelemetry. While our review shows that tracking devices have been deployed extensively in translocation projects, its application has been mostly limited to short-term spatial and demographic monitoring. We conclude that biotelemetry is a powerful tool for harnessing a multitude of lifetime eco-behavioural data which can be used to build valuable predictive models and surveillance programmes, but this capability has yet to be fully realised by researchers in avian translocations.

Museum genomics reveals the Xerces blue butterfly (Glaucopsyche xerces) was a distinct species driven to extinction

The last Xerces blue butterfly was seen in the early 1940s, and its extinction is credited to human urban development. This butterfly has become a North American icon for insect conservation, but some have questioned whether it was truly a distinct species, or simply an isolated population of another living species. To address this question, we leveraged next-generation sequencing using a 93-year-old museum specimen. We applied a genome skimming strategy that aimed for the organellar genome and high-copy fractions of the nuclear genome by a shallow sequencing approach. From these data, we were able to recover over 200 million nucleotides, which assembled into several phylogenetically informative markers and the near-complete mitochondrial genome. From our phylogenetic analyses and haplotype network analysis we conclude that the Xerces blue butterfly was a distinct species driven to extinction.

Creating proxies of extinct species: the bioethics of de-extinction

In April 2013 the National Geographic magazine carried the cover title 'Reviving extinct species, we can, but should we?' suggesting that the technical challenges had been met, but some ethical concerns remained unresolved. Seven years later it is clear that this is not the case. Here we consider the technical scope, the uncertainties, and some of the bioethical issues raised by the future prospect of de-extinction. Biodiversity and welfare will not always align, and when a clash is unavoidable, a trade-off will be necessary, seeking the greatest overall value. De-extinction challenges our current conservation mind-set that seeks to preserve the species and population diversity that currently exists. But if we want to sustain and enhance a biodiverse natural world we might have to be forward looking and embrace the notion of bio-novelty by focussing more on ecosystem stability and resilience, rather than backward looking and seeking to try and recreate lost worlds.

Evolution in the Anthropocene: Informing Governance and Policy

The Anthropocene biosphere constitutes an unprecedented phase in the evolution of life on Earth with one species, humans, exerting extensive control. The increasing intensity of anthropogenic forces in the twenty-first century has widespread implications for attempts to govern both human-dominated ecosystems and the last remaining wild ecosystems. Here, we review how evolutionary biology can inform governance and policies in the Anthropocene, focusing on five governance challenges that span biodiversity, environmental management, food and other biomass production, and human health. The five challenges are: ( a) evolutionary feedbacks, ( b) maintaining resilience, ( c) alleviating constraints, ( d) coevolutionary disruption, and ( e) biotechnology. Strategies for governing these dynamics will themselves have to be coevolutionary, as eco-evolutionary and social dynamics change in response to each other.

De-Extinction

De-extinction projects for species such as the woolly mammoth and passenger pigeon have greatly stimulated public and scientific interest, producing a large body of literature and much debate. To date, there has been little consistency in descriptions of de-extinction technologies and purposes. In 2016, a special committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published a set of guidelines for de-extinction practice, establishing the first detailed description of de-extinction; yet incoherencies in published literature persist. There are even several problems with the IUCN definition. Here I present a comprehensive definition of de-extinction practice and rationale that expounds and reconciles the biological and ecological inconsistencies in the IUCN definition. This new definition brings together the practices of reintroduction and ecological replacement with de-extinction efforts that employ breeding strategies to recover unique extinct phenotypes into a single “de-extinction” discipline. An accurate understanding of de-extinction and biotechnology segregates the restoration of certain species into a new classification of endangerment, removing them from the purview of de-extinction and into the arena of species’ recovery. I term these species as “evolutionarily torpid species”; a term to apply to species falsely considered extinct, which in fact persist in the form of cryopreserved tissues and cultured cells. For the first time in published literature, all currently active de-extinction breeding programs are reviewed and their progress presented. Lastly, I review and scrutinize various topics pertaining to de-extinction in light of the growing body of peer-reviewed literature published since de-extinction breeding programs gained public attention in 2013.

De-scenting Extinction: The Promise of De-extinction May Hasten Continuing Extinctions

Among the most egregious and discouraging problems of conservation is the rapidly escalating human-caused species extinction rate. "De-extinction" refers to the application of certain cutting-edge techniques for the supposed recovery of lost species and gives the impression that scientists, enlightened and empowered by the miracles of technology, are coming to the rescue. "De-extinction" is the latest example of a long play of language that has given conservation efforts a tragically false sense of accomplishment and has worsened the conservation crisis. De-extinction is the tip of an intellectual iceberg that sits atop of a host of profoundly questionable value systems, expectations, attitudes, and priorities that elude and bewitch critical reflection. It gives the impression that extinction is reversible and, thus, diminishes the gravity of the human annihilation of species. Here, we examine how the language of de-extinction influences attitudes, shapes thoughts and imagination, and creates ethical blindness. The language developing around "de-extinction" reveals what is in fact a profound intellectual crisis at the foundation of conservation. The underlying challenge is to find the language that will articulate and inspire the radical and indispensable change needed to come to grips with the value of nature.