Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 600

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved

Open access
Hoban, Sean, Bruford, Michael, D'Urban Jackson, Josephine, Lopes-Fernandes, Margarida, Heuertz, Myriam, Hohenlohe, Paul A., Paz-Vinas, Ivan, Sjögren-Gulve, Per, Segelbacher, Gernot, Vernesi, Cristiano, Aitken, Sally, Bertola, Laura D., Bloomer, Paulette, Breed, Martin, Rodríguez-Correa, Hernando, Funk, W. Chris, Grueber, Catherine E., Hunter, Margaret E., Jaffe, Rodolfo, Liggins, Libby, Mergeay, Joachim, Moharrek, Farideh, O'Brien, David, Ogden, Rob, Palma-Silva, Clarisse, Pierson, Jennifer, Ramakrishnan, Uma, Simo-Droissart, Murielle, Tani, Naoki, Waits, Lisette, Laikre, Linda·2020·Biological Conservation
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will soon agree to a post-2020 global framework for conserving the three elements of biodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) while ensuring sustainable development and benefit sharing. As the most significant global conservation policy mechanism, the new CBD framework has far-reaching consequences- it will guide conservation actions and reporting for each member country until 2050. In previous CBD strategies, as well as other major conservation policy mechanisms, targets and indicators for genetic diversity (variation at the DNA level within species, which facilitates species adaptation and ecosystem function) were undeveloped and focused on species of agricultural relevance. We assert that, to meet global conservation goals, genetic diversity within all species, not just domesticated species and their wild relatives, must be conserved and monitored using appropriate metrics. Building on suggestions in a recent Letter in Science (Laikre et al., 2020) we expand argumentation for three new, pragmatic genetic indicators and modifications to two current indicators for maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of all species, and provide guidance on their practical use. The indicators are: 1) the number of populations with effective population size above versus below 500, 2) the proportion of populations maintained within species, 3) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods. We also present and discuss Goals and Action Targets for post-2020 biodiversity conservation which are connected to these indicators and underlying data. These pragmatic indicators and goals have utility beyond the CBD; they should benefit conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity via national and global policy for decades to come.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Aguilar, 2008, Genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation in plant populations: susceptible signals in plant traits and methodological approaches, Mol. Ecol., 17, 5177, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03971.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Allendorf, 2010, Genomics and the future of conservation genetics, Nat. Rev. Genet., 11, 697, 10.1038/nrg2844 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Alsos, 2012, Genetic consequences of climate change for northern plants, Proc. Biol. Sci., 279, 2042
  4. Blanchet, 2020, A river runs through it: the causes, consequences and management of intraspecific diversity in river networks, Evol. Appl., 10.1111/eva.12941 · DOI
  5. Bowman, 2016, On applications of landscape genetics, Conserv. Genet., 17, 753, 10.1007/s10592-016-0834-5 · DOI
  6. Brown, 2004, Nucleotide diversity and linkage disequilibrium in loblolly pine, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101, 15255, 10.1073/pnas.0404231101 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Carvalho, 2019, Habitat loss does not always entail negative genetic consequences, Front. Genet., 10, 1011, 10.3389/fgene.2019.01101 · DOI
  8. Clark, 2010, Individuals and the variation needed for high species diversity in forest trees, Science, 327, 1129, 10.1126/science.1183506 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Do, 2014, NeEstimator v2: re-implementation of software for the estimation of contemporary effective population size (Ne) from genetic data, Mol. Ecol. Resour., 14, 209, 10.1111/1755-0998.12157 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Doyle, 2016, Inbreeding and disease in tropical shrimp aquaculture: a reappraisal and caution, Aquac. Res., 47, 21, 10.1111/are.12472 · DOI
  11. Erdelen, 2020, Shaping the Fate of Life on Earth: The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Global Policy, 11, 347, 10.1111/1758-5899.12773 · DOI
  12. Frankham, 1995, Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review, Genet. Res., 66, 95, 10.1017/S0016672300034455 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Frankham, 2014, Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, Red List criteria and population viability analyses, Biol. Conserv., 170, 56, 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.036 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Funk, 2012, Harnessing genomics for delineating conservation units, Trends Ecol. Evol., 10.1016/j.tree.2012.05.012 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Gaut, 2018, Demography and its effects on genomic variation in crop domestication, Nat Plants, 4, 512, 10.1038/s41477-018-0210-1 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Gomez-Uchida, 2013, Contemporary effective population and metapopulation size (Ne and meta-Ne): Comparison among three salmonids inhabiting a fragmented system and differing in gene flow and its asymmetries, Ecology and evolution, 3, 569, 10.1002/ece3.485 · doi:10.1002/ece3.485
  17. Griffiths, 2015, Maximizing the phylogenetic diversity of seed banks, Conserv. Biol., 29, 370, 10.1111/cobi.12390 · doi:10.1111/cobi.12390
  18. Guerrant, 2014, Sampling for effective ex situ plant conservation, Int. J. Plant Sci., 175, 11, 10.1086/674131 · doi:10.1086/674131
  19. Hammer, 2005, Genetic Erosion – examples from Italy1,2, Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol., 52, 629, 10.1007/s10722-005-7902-x · DOI
  20. Harlan, 1975, Our vanishing genetic resources, Science, 188, 617, 10.1126/science.188.4188.617 · DOI · Paper page
  21. HELCOM, 2007, 15, 2007
  22. Hill, 2019, Recurrent convergent evolution at amino acid residue 261 in fish rhodopsin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 116, 18473, 10.1073/pnas.1908332116 · DOI
  23. Hoban, 2019, New guidance for ex situ gene conservation: sampling realistic population systems and accounting for collection attrition, Biol. Conserv., 235, 199, 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.04.013 · DOI
  24. Hoban, 2014, Comparative evaluation of potential indicators and temporal sampling protocols for monitoring genetic erosion, Evol. Appl., 7, 984, 10.1111/eva.12197 · DOI
  25. Holliday, 2017, Advances in ecological genomics in forest trees and applications to genetic resources conservation and breeding, Mol. Ecol., 26, 706, 10.1111/mec.13963 · DOI
  26. Hössjer, 2016, Effective sizes and time to migration–drift equilibrium in geographically subdivided populations, Theor. Popul. Biol., 112, 139, 10.1016/j.tpb.2016.09.001 · DOI
  27. Hughes, 2009, Ecological impacts of genotypic diversity in the clonal seagrass Zostera marina, Ecology, 90, 1412, 10.1890/07-2030.1 · DOI
  28. IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, et al. (eds.). IPBES, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages.
  29. Jamieson, 2012, How does the 50/500 rule apply to MVPs?, Trends Ecol. Evol., 27, 578, 10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.001 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Khoury, 2019, Comprehensiveness of conservation of useful wild plants: an operational indicator for biodiversity and sustainable development targets, Ecol. Indic., 98, 420, 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.016 · DOI
  31. Koskela, 2013, Translating conservation genetics into management: Pan-European minimum requirements for dynamic conservation units of forest tree genetic diversity, Biol. Conserv., 157, 39, 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.023 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.023
  32. Lacy, 2012, PMx: software package for demographic and genetic analysis and management of pedigreed populations: PMx software for pedigree analysis, Methods Ecol. Evol., 3, 433, 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00148.x · DOI
  33. Laikre, 2010, Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation, Conserv. Genet., 11, 349, 10.1007/s10592-009-0037-4 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Laikre, 2020, Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity, Science, 367, 1083, 10.1126/science.abb2748 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Leigh, 2019, Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution, Evol. Appl., 12, 1505, 10.1111/eva.12810 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Maruyama, 1980, Genetic variability and effective population size when local extinction and recolonization of subpopulations are frequent, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 77, 6710, 10.1073/pnas.77.11.6710 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Maunder, 2001, The conservation value of botanic garden palm collections, Biol. Conserv., 98, 259, 10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00160-9 · doi:10.1016/s0006-3207(00)00160-9
  38. Miraldo, 2016, An Anthropocene map of genetic diversity, Science, 353, 1532, 10.1126/science.aaf4381 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Morikawa, 2019, Using naturally occurring climate resilient corals to construct bleaching-resistant nurseries, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 10.1073/pnas.1721415116 · DOI
  40. Navarro, 2017, Monitoring biodiversity change through effective global coordination, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., 29, 158, 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.005 · DOI
  41. Ogden, 2020, Benefits and pitfalls of captive conservation genetic management: evaluating diversity in scimitar-horned oryx to support reintroduction planning, Biol. Conserv., 241, 108244, 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108244 · DOI
  42. Ouborg, 1991, The significance of genetic erosion in the process of extinction, Oecologia, 10.1007/BF00317601 · DOI
  43. Outhwaite, 2020, Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens, Nat Ecol Evol, 4, 384, 10.1038/s41559-020-1111-z · DOI
  44. Palstra, 2012, Effective/census population size ratio estimation: a compendium and appraisal, Ecol. Evol., 2, 2357, 10.1002/ece3.329 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Palstra, 2008, Genetic estimates of contemporary effective population size: what can they tell us about the importance of genetic stochasticity for wild population persistence?, Mol. Ecol., 17, 3428, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03842.x · DOI · Paper page
  46. Palstra, 2011, Demographic and genetic factors shaping contemporary metapopulation effective size and its empirical estimation in salmonid fish, Heredity, 107, 444, 10.1038/hdy.2011.31 · doi:10.1038/hdy.2011.31
  47. Paz-Vinas, 2013, The demographic history of populations experiencing asymmetric gene flow: combining simulated and empirical data, Mol. Ecol., 22, 3279, 10.1111/mec.12321 · DOI
  48. Pérez-Espona, 2017, Conservation genetics in the European Union--biases, gaps and future directions, Biol. Conserv., 209, 130, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.01.020 · DOI
  49. Pinsky, 2014, Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic diversity in overfished populations, Mol. Ecol., 23, 29, 10.1111/mec.12509 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Pope, 2015, Not the time or the place: the missing spatio-temporal link in publicly available genetic data, Mol. Ecol., 24, 3802, 10.1111/mec.13254 · DOI
  51. Prieto, 2015, Complementary effects of species and genetic diversity on productivity and stability of sown grasslands, Nat Plants, 1, 15033, 10.1038/nplants.2015.33 · DOI
  52. Raffard, 2019, The community and ecosystem consequences of intraspecific diversity: A meta-analysis, Biol. Rev., 94, 648, 10.1111/brv.12472 · DOI · Paper page
  53. Reusch, 2005, Ecosystem recovery after climatic extremes enhanced by genotypic diversity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 102, 2826, 10.1073/pnas.0500008102 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Ryman, 2019, Do estimates of contemporary effective size tell us what we want to know?, Mol. Eco., 28, 1904, 10.1111/mec.15027 · DOI
  55. Santamaría, 2012, Evolution in biodiversity policy–current gaps and future needs, Evol. Appl., 5, 202, 10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00229.x · DOI
  56. Sjögren, 1988, Metapopulation biology of Rana lessonae Camerano on the Northern periphery of its range, Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations, 157
  57. Sjögren, 1991, Genetic variation in relation to demography of peripheral pool frog populations (Rana lessonae), Evol. Ecol., 5, 248, 10.1007/BF02214231 · DOI
  58. Spielman, 2004, Most species are not driven to extinction before genetic factors impact them, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 101, 15261, 10.1073/pnas.0403809101 · DOI · Paper page
  59. Taylor, 2017, Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners, Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, 231, 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.001 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Van der Walt, 2017, Using genetics to prioritise headwater stream fish populations of the Marico barb, Enteromius motebensis Steindachner 1894, for conservation action, Koedoe, 59, 381
  61. Walters, 2013, Plant science. Preservation of recalcitrant seeds, Science, 339, 915, 10.1126/science.1230935 · doi:10.1126/science.1230935
  62. Wang, 2016, Prediction and estimation of effective population size, Heredity, 117, 193, 10.1038/hdy.2016.43 · DOI · Paper page
  63. Waples, 2006, INVITED REVIEW: What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity, Mol. Ecol., 15, 1419, 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02890.x · DOI · Paper page
  64. Waples, 2011, Calculating Ne and Ne/N in age-structured populations: a hybrid Felsenstein-Hill approach, Ecology, 92, 1513, 10.1890/10-1796.1 · doi:10.1890/10-1796.1
  65. Wasserman, 2012, Simulating the effects of climate change on population connectivity of American marten (Martes americana) in the northern Rocky Mountains, USA, Landsc. Ecol., 27, 211, 10.1007/s10980-011-9653-8 · DOI
  66. Willoughby, 2015, The reduction of genetic diversity in threatened vertebrates and new recommendations regarding IUCN conservation rankings, Biol. Conserv., 191, 495, 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.025 · DOI
  67. Wu, 2019, Benefits and risks of using clones in forestry – a review, Scand. J. For. Res., 34, 352, 10.1080/02827581.2018.1487579 · doi:10.1080/02827581.2018.1487579

Cited by

See all 600

Metadata

Authors
Hoban, S., Bruford, M., D'Urban Jackson, J., Lopes-Fernandes, M., Heuertz, M., Hohenlohe, P. A., Paz-Vinas, I., Sjögren-Gulve, P., Segelbacher, G., Vernesi, C., Aitken, S., Bertola, L. D., Bloomer, P., Breed, M., Rodríguez-Correa, H., Funk, W. C., Grueber, C. E., Hunter, M. E., Jaffe, R., Liggins, L., Mergeay, J., Moharrek, F., O'Brien, D., Ogden, R., Palma-Silva, C., Pierson, J., Ramakrishnan, U., Simo-Droissart, M., Tani, N., Waits, L., & Laikre, L.
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
248
Pages
108654
ISSN
0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654
OpenAlex
W3038412545
Cited by
600
References
4
FWCI
41.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2019-05503)
  • European Cooperation in Science and Technology (18134)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-25-01)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (FR-2016/0005)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.