Greek roadless policy: A model for Europe Kati, Vassiliki; Selva, Nuria; Sjögren-Gulve, Per
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
2022-Mar-04, 2022-03-04, 20220304, Letnik:
375, Številka:
6584
Journal Article
Abstract
Global conservation policy and action have largely neglected protecting and monitoring genetic diversity—one of the three main pillars of biodiversity. Genetic diversity (diversity within ...species) underlies species’ adaptation and survival, ecosystem resilience, and societal innovation. The low priority given to genetic diversity has largely been due to knowledge gaps in key areas, including the importance of genetic diversity and the trends in genetic diversity change; the perceived high expense and low availability and the scattered nature of genetic data; and complicated concepts and information that are inaccessible to policymakers. However, numerous recent advances in knowledge, technology, databases, practice, and capacity have now set the stage for better integration of genetic diversity in policy instruments and conservation efforts. We review these developments and explore how they can support improved consideration of genetic diversity in global conservation policy commitments and enable countries to monitor, report on, and take action to maintain or restore genetic diversity.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
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.
•Red List data are useful for calculating conservation genetic indicators.•Genetic indicators can be calculated for at least hundreds of species per country.•Genetic threats and current Red List ...assessments are complementary.•Genetic indicators can and should be assessed at the same time as the Red List.•Data availability for genetic indicators, and indicator values, vary among taxa.
Genetic diversity is a key aspect of biological variation for the adaptability and survival of populations of species and must be monitored to assure maintenance. We used data from the Swedish Red List 2020 and from published reviews to apply three indicators for genetic diversity proposed for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). We studied a wide range of taxonomic groups, and made more detailed indicator assessments for mammals and herptiles.
For indicator 1, the proportion of populations with effective population size Ne > 500, 33% of 22,557 investigated species had a population size estimate that could be used as a proxy for Ne. For herptiles and mammals, 70% and 49% of populations of species, respectively, likely had Ne > 500.
Data for evaluation of indicator 2, the proportion of remaining populations or historical range, was available for 20% of all species evaluated for the Red List. Meanwhile, 32% of the herptile and 84% of the mammal populations are maintaining their populations and range.
For indicator 3, the number of species or populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods, there are genetic studies on 3% of all species, and 0.3% are beeing monitored genetically. In contrast, 68% of mammals and 29% of herptiles are studied using DNA, and 8% of mammals and 24% of herptiles are genetically monitored.
We conclude that the Red List provides data that are suitable for evaluating the genetic indicators, but the data quality can be improved. We also show that the genetic indicators capture conservation issues of genetic erosion that the Red List misses.There is a synergy in estimating the genetic indicators in parallel with the Red Listing process. We propose that indicator values could be included in national Red Listing as a new category - “genetically threatened”, based on the genetic indicators.
Recent scientific evidence shows that genetic diversity must be maintained, managed, and monitored to protect biodiversity and nature's contributions to people. Three genetic diversity indicators, ...two of which do not require DNA‐based assessment, have been proposed for reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity and other conservation and policy initiatives. These indicators allow an approximation of the status and trends of genetic diversity to inform policy, using existing demographic and geographic information. Application of these indicators has been initiated and here we describe ongoing efforts in calculating these indicators with examples. We specifically describe a project underway to apply these indicators in nine countries, provide example calculations, address concerns of policy makers and implementation challenges, and describe a roadmap for further development and deployment, incorporating feedback from the broader community. We also present guidance documents and data collection tools for calculating indicators. We demonstrate that Parties can successfully and cost‐effectively report these genetic diversity indicators with existing biodiversity observation data, and, in doing so, better conserve the Earth's biodiversity.
Interspecific introgression is considered a potential threat to endangered taxa. One example where this has had a major impact on conservation policy is the lesser white-fronted goose (LWfG). After a ...dramatic decline in Sweden, captive breeding birds were released between 1981-1999 with the aim to reinforce the population. However, the detection of greater white-fronted goose (GWfG) mitochondrial DNA in the LWfG breeding stock led to the release program being dismantled, even though the presence of GWfG introgression in the actual wild Swedish LWfG population was never documented. To examine this, we sequenced the complete genomes of 21 LWfG birds from the Swedish, Russian and Norwegian populations, and compared these with genomes from other goose species, including the GWfG. We found no evidence of interspecific introgression into the wild Swedish LWfG population in either nuclear genomic or mitochondrial data. Moreover, Swedish LWfG birds are genetically distinct from the Russian and Norwegian populations and display comparatively low genomic diversity and high levels of inbreeding. Our findings highlight the utility of genomic approaches in providing scientific evidence that can help improve conservation management as well as policies for breeding and reinforcement programmes.
Under the recently adopted Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 196 Parties committed to reporting the status of genetic diversity for all species. To facilitate reporting, three genetic ...diversity indicators were developed, two of which focus on processes contributing to genetic diversity conservation: maintaining genetically distinct populations and ensuring populations are large enough to maintain genetic diversity. The major advantage of these indicators is that they can be estimated with or without DNA‐based data. However, demonstrating their feasibility requires addressing the methodological challenges of using data gathered from diverse sources, across diverse taxonomic groups, and for countries of varying socio‐economic status and biodiversity levels. Here, we assess the genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations across nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. Eighty‐three percent of the taxa assessed had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Our results show that although the majority of species maintain most populations, 58% of species have populations too small to maintain genetic diversity. Moreover, genetic indicator values suggest that IUCN Red List status and other initiatives fail to assess genetic status, highlighting the critical importance of genetic indicators.
We assess two genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations in nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. The majority of taxa assessed (83%) had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Although most species assessed have most populations maintained (Populations maintained indicator), a large percentage of species' populations are too small to maintain genetic diversity (Ne 500 indicator). Genetic indicators can be calculated quickly and affordably.
Two aspects of patch geometry-area and isolation-currently dominate the field of metapopulation dynamics. Under this area-and-isolation paradigm, models commonly assume that the probability of local ...extinction decreases as patch area increases and that the probability of colonization increases as patch connectivity increases. Environmental variables other than patch area and isolation are assumed to have relatively little effect on metapopulation dynamics. Our work on a metapopulation of the butterfly Speyeria nokomis apacheana highlights the need for a broader view of metapopulation dynamics. In this system, neither occupancy nor turnover patterns were best modeled as functions of patch area or isolation. Instead, other measures of habitat quality explained the most variance in occupancy and turnover. Our study also revealed temporal variation in the factors associated with occupancy and turnover. This variation can cause the results of analyses to vary with the temporal scale of analysis. For example, factors associated with turnover in this system differed among single-year and multiple-year analyses. We emphasize that factors other than patch geometry may drive extinction and colonization processes in metapopulations, especially in systems that experience substantial natural and anthropogenic environmental variability.
PDF
