Search

The current knowledge about fish biodiversity and species distributions in Arctic freshwater systems is generally limited. This contrasts the clear urgency for more accurate biodiversity data to assess the effects of future ecosystem challenges such as climate change and other anthropogenic effects. Here we compare traditional electrofishing surveys with environmental DNA (eDNA) for monitoring species distribution of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and Arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) in the West Greenlandic sub-Arctic river system of Kapisillit, which contains the only known population of Atlantic salmon in Greenland. Overall, electrofishing and eDNA surveys show high compatibility in regard to species detection and quantification, with Arctic char confirming a significant relationship between eDNA concentration and observed fish abundance. Both methods confirm a shift in species occurrence and relative species abundance through the river system. Specifically, salmon is restricted to the lower warmer sections of the river system while Arctic char is found throughout the system but dominates the upper parts. In total, the study supports eDNA as a promising tool for fish community assessment, which may serve a wide array of applications for Arctic freshwater monitoring. These applications include analyzing species occurrence and distribution of native and invasive species, as well as documenting potential shifts in relative species abundance as shown here. Given the ease of sampling and high sensitivity of the method, eDNA provides a powerful cost-effective approach capable of detecting species in remote areas as well as corroborating fish community monitoring programs. This may especially be valuable for monitoring in the Arctic where logistic complications with sampling and high operational costs so far constrains routine monitoring.

The role of methylation in adaptive, developmental and speciation processes has attracted considerable interest, but interpretation of results is complicated by diffuse boundaries between genetic and non-genetic variation. We studied whole genome genetic and methylation variation in the European eel, distributed from subarctic to subtropical environments, but with panmixia precluding genetically based local adaptation beyond single-generation responses. Overall methylation was 70.9%, with hypomethylation predominantly found in promoters and first exons. Redundancy analyses involving juvenile glass eels showed 0.06% and 0.03% of the variance at SNPs to be explained by localities and environmental variables, respectively, with GO terms of genes associated with outliers primarily involving neural system functioning. For CpGs 2.98% and 1.36% of variance was explained by localities and environmental variables. Differentially methylated regions particularly included genes involved in developmental processes, with Hox clusters featuring prominently. Life stage (adult versus glass eels) was the most important source of inter-individual variation in methylation, probably reflecting both ageing and developmental processes. Demethylation of transposable elements relative to pure European eel was observed in European X American eel hybrids, possibly representing postzygotic barriers in this system characterized by prolonged speciation and ongoing gene flow. Whereas the genetic data are consistent with a role of single-generation selective responses, the methylation results underpin the importance of epigenetics in the life cycle of eels and suggest interactions between local environments, development and phenotypic variation mediated by methylation variation. Eels are remarkable by having retained eight Hox clusters, and the results suggest important roles of methylation at Hox genes for adaptive processes.

The most remarkable feature of our planet is the diversity of its life forms, ranging from viruses and nanobacteria to blue whales and giant sequoias to satanic leaf‐tailed geckos and leafy seadragons (look them up!). Life is found in essentially all environments on earth, and the number of species living on our planet is many times greater than we could have imagined a century ago. A well‐regarded estimate pegs the number of eukaryotic species on earth at 8.7 million (±1.3 million), of which fewer than 15% are currently described (Mora et al., 2011). The diversity of prokaryotes is less clear (and highly controversial), but an analysis of 1.6 billion 16S ribosomal RNA sequences estimated that 0.8–1.6 million prokaryotic operational taxonomic units exist globally (Louca et al., 2019). While we do not know how many species are currently extant, or have existed in the past, we do know that this biodiversity is valuable, providing food, fibre and medicine, furnishing ecosystem services such as water and air purification, nutrient cycling, pollination and carbon uptake, and contributing to technological innovations ranging from biotechnology to robotics to material science. Moreover, biodiversity underlies the cultural identity of human populations and is important to human health and well‐being. Geographically, species richness increases from the Polar Regions to the tropics in terrestrial and surface marine ecosystems. Thus, some countries, especially those in tropical and subtropical regions, are endowed with much greater biodiversity than others. Unfortunately, benefits arising from the access and utilization of this biodiversity have been unequally shared, with (paradoxically) biodiversity‐poor countries often accruing the lion's share of economic gains. There can be imbalances within countries as well, wherein some segments of the population obtain greater economic benefits from biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge than indigenous peoples. The “Nagoya

Udsætter man fisk i naturen skal man sikre den genetiske mangfoldighed hos fiskearten. DTU Aqua har lavet vejledninger om hvordan man gør det bedst muligt og derved undgår indavl hos de fisk kan udsætter i naturen.

The gray wolf Canis lupus range in central Europe is dynamically expanding, reconnecting previously isolated populations. Thus, a recent paper has proposed to merge the current Baltic and Central European (CE) wolf management units, which are no longer isolated by distance. However, recent genetic findings indicate that these two populations are not genetically homogenous. Here we review the most recent data on wolf genetic structure in central Europe and show that even though the CE and Baltic wolves represent the same phylogeographic lineage, their demographic history has resulted in significant genetic structure between these two populations. While the groups are interconnected by moderate gene flow, it is not high enough to reduce the strong founder signal observed in the CE population, suggesting that population dynamics within the CE wolf range are largely independent from those of its source (Baltic) population. Consequently, a management unit combining the CE and Baltic wolves would not form a demographically coherent entity. Thus, we recommend that conservation management units maintain their separate status.