The Two Faces of Introgression in Conservation Biology

Abstract

Introgression is an important biological process that has a major impact on the evolutionary potential of species. Admixed offspring from parental individuals of different species, or in other word evolutionarily distinct gene-pools, may enable the exchange of genomic information between these two species without leading to genetic swamping. Here, we argue that conservation biologists must take into account both the adaptive and maladaptive consequences resulting from introgression by evaluating the biological and environmental context: past, present and future. Our argument is based on recent insights confirming species boundaries to be permeable, with scenarios suggesting increased permeability in the future. As a consequence, closely related species may form syngameons that enhance the evolutionary potential and resilience to environmental change by exchanging genetic information. Here, we focus on three aspects of introgression in applied conservation. Firstly, introgression between species in their native habitats may be considered as a natural strategy of these species to enhance their resilience to environmental change. Secondly, introgression between species, particularly native and nonnative, may rarely lead to genetic swamping but need to be monitored carefully to avoid the loss of the species identity of native threatened species. Thirdly, introgression between threatened and non-threatened species need to be considered as unique opportunities to recover alleles that are already lost in the gene pool of highly threatened species experiencing the attraction of the extinction vortex, especially where admixed individuals already exist naturally. In summary, we are calling for the replacement of a static Linnean species concept by a species concept that considers species a dynamic gene pools with permeable boundaries enabling the exchange of genetic information, enhancing adaptive capacity without losing species integrity.

Keywords

exinction by hybridization / hybridization / permeable species boundaries / rescue genetics / Syngameon

References

[1] Aguillon, S. M., T. O. Dodge, G. A. Preising, and M. Schumer. 2022. “Introgression.” Current Biology 32: R865–R868. cub.2022/07.004.

[2] Anderson, E. 1949. Introgressive Hybridization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[3] Armstrong, M. R., R. E. Wilson, J. A. Johnson, et al. 2025. “Hybridization and Asymmetrical Introgression Between the Vulnerable Gray-Headed Chickadee and a More Abundant Congener, the Boreal Chickadee: Implications for Conservation.” Ecology and Evolution 15: e71673. https://doi.org/10.1002/eee3.71673.

[4] Barraclough, T. G.2024. “Does Selection Favour the Maintenance of Porous Species Boundaries?” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 37: 616–627. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeb/voae030.

[5] Baskett, M. L., and R. Gomulkiewicz. 2011. “Introgressive Hybridization as a Mechanism for Species Rescue.” Theoretical Ecology 4: 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-011-0118-0.

[6] Bell, D. A., Z. L. Robinson, W. C. Funk, et al. 2019. “The Exciting Potential and Remaining Uncertainties of Genetic Rescue.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34: 1070–1079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.06.006.

[7] Buck, R., and L. Flores-Rentería. 2022. “The Syngameon Enigma.” Plants 11: 895. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants1170895.

[8] Buck, R., D. Ortega-Del Vecchyo, C. Gehring, et al. 2023. “Sequential Hybridization May Have Facilitated Ecological Transitions in the Southwestern Pinyon Pine Syngameon.” New Phytologist 237: 2435–2449. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18543.

[9] Cannon, C. H., J. Kartesz, S. Hoban, M. I. Loza, E. B. Bruns, and A. L. Hipp. 2024. “Constructing Sympatry Networks to Assess Potential Introgression Pathways Within the Major Oak Sections in the Contiguous Us States.” PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET 6: 1437–1452. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10546.

[10] Cannon, C. H., and M. Lerdau. 2023. “Conservation Should Not Make ‘Perfect’ an Enemy of ‘Good.” Trends in Plant Science 28: 971–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2023.06.010.

[11] Cannon, C. H., and R. J. Petit. 2020. “The Oak Syngameon: More Than the Sum of Its Parts.” New Phytologist 226: 978–983. https://doi.org/10.11111/nph.16091.

[12] Cannon, C. H., and C. L. Scher. 2017. “Exploring the Potential of Gametic Reconstruction of Parental Genotypes by F1 Hybrids as a Bridge for Rapid Introgression.” Genome 60: 713–719. https://doi.org/10.1139/gen-2016-0181.

[13] Corlett, R. T.2023. “Achieving Zero Extinction for Land Plants.” Trends in Plant Science 28: 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2023.03.019.

[14] Coyne, J. A., and H. A. Orr. 2003. Speciation. Sinauer.

[15] Curto, M., P. Puppo, S. Kratschmer, and H. Meimberg. 2017. “Genetic Diversity and Differentiation Patterns in Micromeria From the Canary Islands Are Congruent With Multiple Colonization Dynamics and the Establishment of Species Syngameons.” BMC Evolutionary Biology 17: 198. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-017-1031-y.

[16] Edelman, N. B., and J. Mallet. 2021. “Prevalence and Adaptive Impact of Introgression.” Annual Review of Genetics 55: 265–283. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-021821-020805.

[17] Forsdick, N. J., D. Martini, L. Brown, et al. 2021. “Genomic Sequencing Confirms Absence of Introgression Despite Past Hybridisation Between a Critically Endangered Bird and Its Common Congener.” Global Ecology and Conservation 28: e01671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01681.

[18] Grant, P. R., and B. R. Grant. 2019. “Hybridization Increases Population Variation During Adaptive Radiation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116: 23216–23224. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913534116.

[19] Hamilton, J. A., and J. M. Miller. 2016. “Adaptive Introgression as a Resource for Management and Genetic Conservation In a Changing Climate.” Conservation Biology 30: 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12574.

[20] Harrison, R. G., and E. L. Larson. 2014. “Hybridization, Introgression, and the Nature of Species Boundaries.” Journal of Heredity 105: 895–809. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered.esu033.

[21] Howard-McCombe, J., A. Jamoeson, A. Carmagini, et al. 2023. “Genetic Swamping of the Critically Endangered Scottish Wildcat Was Recent and Accelerated by Disease.” Current Biology 23: 5761–4769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.10.026.

[22] Liu, S., L. Zhang, Y. Sang, et al. 2022. “Demographic History and Natural Selection Shape Patterns of Deleterious Mutation Load and Barriers to Introgression Across Populus genome.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 39: msac008. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev.msac008.

[23] Liu, X., L. Lin, M. H. S. Sinding, et al. 2024. “Introgression and Disruption of Migration Routes Have Shaped the Genetic Integrity of Wildebeest Populations.” Nature Communications 15: 2921. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47015-y.

[24] Lucena-Perez, M., J. L. A. Paijmans, F. Nocete, et al. 2024. “Recent Increase in Species-Wide Diversity After Interspecies Introgression in the Highly Endangered Iberian Lynx.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 8: 282–292. https://doi.org/10.10183/s41559-023.02267-7.

[25] Ma, Y., T. Marczewski, D. Xue, et al. 2019. “Conservation Implications of Asymmetric Introgression and Reproductive Barriers in a Rare Primrose Species.” BMC Plant Biology 19: 286. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-019-1881-9.

[26] Mallet, J., N. Besansky, and M. W. Hahn. 2016. “How Reticulated Are Species?” BioEssays 38: 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500149.

[27] Marquardt, J., A. Blanckaert, R. A. Nichols, et al. 2022. “Cyto-Nuclear Incompatibilities Across a Bluebell Hybrid Zone In Northern Spain Do Not Prevent Genome-Wide Introgression of Neutral Markers.” Evolutionary Journal of the Linnean Society 1: kzac003. https://doi.org/10.1093/evolinnean/kzac003.

[28] Noren, K., and M. Hasselgren. 2024. To Genetic Rescue or Not? Trends in Genetics, in press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2014.11.004.

[29] Oberprieler, C., D. Lenz, P. Donhauser, and C. Bässler. 2024. “Surviving the Extinction Vortex? Discovering Remnant Stands of Senecio Hercynicus (Compositae, Senecioneae) Evading Genetic Swamping by Its Congener S. ovatus in the Bavarian and Bohemian Forest Region.” Flora 320: 152602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2024.152602.

[30] van Oppen, M. J. H., B. J. McDonald, B. Willis, and D. J. Miller. 2001. “The Evolutionary History of the Coral Genus Acropora (Scleractinia, Cnidaria) Based on a Mitochondrial and a Nuclear Marker: Reticulation, Incomplete Lineage Sorting, or Morphological Convergence?.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 18: 1315–1329. https://doi.org/10.1983/oxfordjournals.moolbev.a003916.

[31] Pfennig, K. S.2021. “Biased Hybridization and Its Impact on Adaptive Introgression.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36: 488–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.02.010.

[32] Ruhsam, M., D. Kohn, J. Marquardt, et al. 2023. “Is Hybridisation With Non-Native Congeneric Species a Threat to the UK Native Bluebellhyacinthoides Non-Scripta?” Plants, People, Planet 5: 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10387.

[33] Staude, I. R., and J. Ebersbach. 2023. “Neophytes May Promote Hybridization and Adaptations to a Changing Planet.” Ecology and Evolution 13: e10405. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.10405.

[34] Suarez-Gonzalez, A., C. Lexer, and Q. C. B. Cronk. 2018. “Adaptive Introgression: A Plant Perspective.” Biology Letters 14: 20170688. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0688.

[35] Touchette, L., J. Godbout, M. Lamothe, I. Porth, and N. Isabel. 2024. “A Cryptic Syngameon Within Betula Shrubs Revealed: Implications for Conservation in Changing Subarctic Environments.” Evolutionary Applications 17: e13689. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13689.

[36] Valencia-A, S.2020. “Species Delimitation in the Genus Quercus (Fagaceae).” Botanical Sciences 99, no. 1: 1–12.

[37] Villa-Machío, I., M. Heuertz, I. Álvarez, and G. N. Feliner. 2022. “Demography-Driven and Adaptive Introgression In a Hybrid Zone of the Armeria syngameon.” Molecular Ecology 33: e17167. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.17167.

[38] Vonholdt, B. M., J. W. Hinton, A. C. Shutt, et al. 2016. “Reviving Ghost Alleles: Genetically Admixed Coyotes Along the American Gold Coast Are Critical for Saving Thee Endangered Red Wolf.” Science Advances 8: e1501714. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciaadv.1501714.

[39] Walker, J. M., E. S. M. van der Heijden, A. Maulana, et al. 2024. “Common Misconceptions of Speciation.” Evolutionary Journal of the Linnean Society 3: kzae029. https://doi.org/10.1093/evolinnean.kzae029.

[40] Wang, G., X. Zhang, E. A. Herre, et al. 2021. “Genomic Evidence of Prevalent Hybridization Throughout the Evolutionary History of the Fig-Wasp Pollination Mutualism.” Nature Communications 12: 718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-20957-3.

[41] Whittemore, A. T., and R. E. Miller. 2023. “Dynamic Properties of the Pinyon Pine Syngameon.” New Phytologist 237: 1943–1945. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.18707.

[42] Wogan, G. O. U., M. L. Yuan, D. L. Mahler, and I. J. Wang. 2023. “Hybridization and Transgressive Evolution Generate Diversity in an Adaptive Radiation of Anolis Lizards.” Systematic Biology 72: 874–884. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio.syad026.

[43] Wu, C. I.2001. “The Genic View of the Process of Speciation.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 851–865. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00335.x.

[44] Yang, Y., T. Ma, Z. Wang, et al. 2018. “Genomic Effects of Population Collapse in a Critically Endangered Ironwood Tree Ostrya rehderiana.” Nature Communications 9: 5449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07913-4.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Integrative Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG).