Conclusions
We support the goals of Millette
et al. (2020) and recognize that some of the flaws outlined are not
unique to their study, although their temporal focus presents novel
issues. Combined, these constraints increase the risk of
overinterpretation of macro-genetic studies’ conclusions (e.g. no or no
consistent anthropogenically-driven IGD changes), which could misinform
important conservation policy decisions. Macro-geneticists must not
continue to merely acknowledge such limitations and carry on with their
studies regardless, especially when meta-analyses using appropriate
molecular markers consistently show anthropogenically-driven changes in
IGD (e.g. due to harvest, habitat loss and fragmentation; Aguilar et al.
2008; Pinsky and Palumbi, 2014; Schlaepfer et al. 2019; González et al.
2020). Macro-geneticists must accurately study variables of interest by
using the most appropriate data rather than the most abundant data.