Practical application of indicators for genetic diversity in CBD post-2020 global biodiversity framework implementation

•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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ecological indicators 2022-09, Vol.142, p.109167, Article 109167
Hauptverfasser: Thurfjell, Henrik, Laikre, Linda, Ekblom, Robert, Hoban, Sean, Sjögren-Gulve, Per
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•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.
ISSN:1470-160X
1872-7034
1872-7034
DOI:10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109167