Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework
The Morton Arboretum, Center for Tree Science, Lisle, USA
The University of Chicago, Chicago, USA
School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria, South Africa
Department of Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, USA
School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW Australia
NatureServe, Biodiversity Indicators Program, Arlington, USA
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
INRAE, University Bordeaux, Biogeco, Cestas France
U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Gainesville, USA
Oceans Division, Natural Resources Defense Council, NewYork, USA
Chicago Zoological Society, Species Conservation Toolkit Initiative, Brookfield, USA
Conservation Planning Specialist Group, IUCN SSC, Auckland, New Zealand
Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA), NOVA FCSH, Lisbon, Portugal
Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, Kingston, Australia
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO), Mexico City, Mexico
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia Y Tecnología (CONACYT), Mexico City, Mexico
School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Department of Integrative Biology; Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, AgBio Research, Lansing, USA
Research Institute for Nature and Forest, Geraardsbergen, Belgium
Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Kellogg Biological Station; Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Michigan State University, Lansing, USA
Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Seville, Spain
NatureScot, Inverness, Scotland, UK
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies and the Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, EH25 9RG, Midlothian, United Kingdom
Wildlife Ecology and Management, University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Forest Ecology Unit, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Trento, Italy
Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Centre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
Genetic diversity among and within populations of all species is necessary for people and nature to survive and thrive in a changing world. Over the past three years, commitments for conserving genetic diversity have become more ambitious and specific under the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF). This Perspective article comments on how goals and targets of the GBF have evolved, the improvements that are still needed, lessons learned from this process, and connections between goals and targets and the actions and reporting that will be needed to maintain, protect, manage and monitor genetic diversity. It is possible and necessary that the GBF strives to maintain genetic diversity within and among populations of all species, to restore genetic connectivity, and to develop national genetic conservation strategies, and to report on these using proposed, feasible indicators.
Untitled section
Keywords: Adaptive capacity, Gene flow, Global conservation policy, Effective population size, Indicators
Article notes
Untitled section
Received 2022 Nov 8; Accepted 2022 Nov 30; Issue date 2023.
Background
Destruction of habitat, overharvest, and other societal activities are leading to widespread and precipitous declines in genetic diversity (Des Roches et al. 2021; Hoban et al. 2021a)—which is the foundation of species’ ability to adapt and a key component of ecosystem function and resilience. DNA-based studies have documented high genetic diversity losses over the past 50 to 100 years—especially in island species (28% loss), and harvested fish species (14% loss) (Pinsky and Palumbi 2014; Leigh et al. 2019). Expected genetic diversity loss due to decreased population sizes and lost habitat are also severe. A recently established mathematical relationship between population loss and genetic diversity loss from several plant and animal species suggests that genetic diversity within IUCN Threatened species has declined, on average, 9 to 33% over the past few decades (Exposito-Alonso et al. 2022). Meanwhile, population genetic theory combined with the Living Planet Index forecasts that, unless interventions are taken to stop and reverse species’ population declines, populations may ultimately lose an average of 19 to 66% of their genetic (allelic) diversity (Hoban et al. 2021a).
Genetic diversity loss has consequences for species, including determining reproduction and survival rates of individual organisms, vulnerability to climate change, and risk of species’ extinctions (Des Roches et al. 2021; Hoban et al. 2021a). Loss of genetic diversity also disrupts nutrient cycling in forests and streams (and other ecosystem services), seasonal timing of fish and bird migration, and temperature tolerance in amphibians (LeRoy et al. 2007; Schweitzer et al. 2011; Caprioli et al. 2012; Manhard et al. 2017; Bodensteiner et al. 2021). On the other hand, successful conservation of genetic diversity can increase resilience of forests and other ecosystem service providers to pests and disease, and the potential to restore coral reefs and seagrasses (Hughes and Stachowicz 2004; Budde et al. 2016; Baums et al. 2019).
One principal global mechanism for conserving biodiversity is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international treaty among nearly all countries (plus the European Union; hereafter signatories to the Convention are referred to as “Parties”) to conserve, sustainably use, and share benefits arising from biodiversity. The CBD had multiple frameworks since it came into force in 1993, including the Strategic Plan from 2002 to 2010, with four strategic goals for biodiversity and underlying targets for each (CBD 2002, 2004); the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, known as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD 2010); and ongoing preparations for a post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF, https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020, CBD 2022a). The post-2020 GBF is expected to have four high level goals for 2050 related to the state of nature resulting from conservation, nature’s contributions to people and its sustainable use, shared benefits arising from biodiversity, and means of implementation and resource mobilization; and 22 action targets on changes in human society and activities needed by 2030 to achieve the goals. The GBF is being negotiated and must be agreed upon by all Parties, and therefore reflects scientific input, political negotiation, perceived feasibility, and compromise.
To navigate developments in the post-2020 GBF text with respect to genetic diversity, over the past three years, we provide a scientific synthesis of its past, present and possible future status. We aim to identify specific and science-informed improvements that could strengthen the GBF. We describe: the progression of wording around genetic diversity in GBF goals and targets, up to October 2022; highlight issues to be resolved in the final GBF draft, with suggestions for resolving them; share lessons from participating in this process; and reiterate connections between GBF wording and indicators to measure progress under the monitoring framework of the GBF.
Untitled section
Box 1 Reflections on pre-2020 commitments
The original 1992 CBD convention text (https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/) outlines many commitments—in situ and ex situ conservation, sustainable use, protected areas, research, public education—needed for the “conservation of biological diversity… [which] includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.” The 2002–2010 commitments and the Strategic Plan for 2011–2020 contained a high-level goal and a target for genetic diversity (see Table 1), but had major issues such as vague wording and a focus on agricultural and other socioeconomically and culturally ‘valuable’ species. This led to national monitoring and reporting on genetic diversity that was primarily concerned with crops and livestock, crop wild relatives, and harvested trees, and on ex situ activities like seed banks and agricultural breeding programs, while neglecting most wild species (Hoban et al. 2020b,2021c). As one exception to this trend, Scotland produced a sub-national scorecard assessing genetic diversity in wild species as part of their progress toward Aichi Target 13 (Hollingsworth et al. 2020). Terms that were not well defined included “maintain genetic diversity,” “minimize genetic erosion,” and “safeguard genetic diversity.” We suggest that defined terminology is vital in setting targets to ensure consistent, transparent and effective translation to national actions and measurement.
Target 13 also called for developing national strategies for genetic conservation, though guidance on developing or reporting such strategies were lacking. We are not aware of the existence of many such national strategies. Still, frameworks for assessing wild species’ genetic diversity in situ and ex situ show that it is feasible and beneficial to publish such national or subnational reports (Hollingsworth et al. 2020; Hoban et al. 2020; O’Brien et al. 2022).
Another issue was the lack of indicators for tracking and reporting on genetic diversity for populations of wild species (Hoban et al. 2020). Consequently, most Parties did not report for their progress towards Aichi Target 13 (https://www.cbd.int/aichi-targets/target/13, CBD 2020a), while a scientific assessment of mid-term progress on the Strategic Plan (Tittensor et al. 2014) only quantified the status of threatened domestic breeds. The final assessment of Aichi Target 13 indicates that the genetic diversity of cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals, and wild relatives is continuing to erode and that the target has not been achieved (CBD 2022a). As such, Díaz et al. (2020) called for more ambitious objectives for genetic diversity in the post-2020 GBF, and the CBD and others have acknowledged gaps in genetic diversity indicators for wild species (CBD 2016, 2021a; OECD 2019).
Untitled section
BOX 2. Lessons learned
Our involvement with the post-2020 GBF led to several lessons about conservation policy, some of which have been highlighted previously (Hoban et al. 2013, 2020; Taylor et al. 2017; Holderegger et al. 2019; Taft et al. 2020; Kershaw et al. 2022). These are:
- It is vital to build relationships with decision makers- persons present in the rooms where policy is drafted and negotiated. For example, it is necessary to correspond frequently with the national representatives attending CBD meetings (https://www.cbd.int/information/nfp.shtml). Decision makers helped us evaluate the feasibility of proposals, understand perspectives of other decision makers, and present proposed wording.
- Global and two-way engagement is required. It is necessary to connect with countries spanning a diversity of economic resources, uses/ reliance on biodiversity, etc., on every continent. Dialogue, listening, and two-way knowledge sharing is also needed to provide voice to issues of national capacity, to ensure that goals, targets and indicators meet the needs and capabilities of all nations.
- Interpretation and outreach are necessary for translating scientific findings, using easy to understand language, graphics, and clear point-by-point actions needed.
- Continual engagement is required—a marathon commitment and an ability to rapidly act with very high levels of work at certain periods.
- A large team with diverse skills, background and connections is helpful. For instance, forming the Coalition for Conservation Genetics (Kershaw et al. 2022) allowed wide dissemination of policy briefs and messages, leveraging the reputation of globally respected organizations (e.g. IUCN), assistance with multi-lingual translation of documents, collaborations with NGOs, and more. Involving non-academic researchers and policy makers/framework drafters with specific academic training, also helped bridge the science-policy divide.
- Virtual interactions helped collaboration, discussion, knowledge sharing, and constructive critique. Despite technical difficulties, virtual platforms were more inclusive and allowed us to meet people we otherwise could not have, and participate with higher frequency than in person meetings allow. One regret is that although we did gather suggestions through dialogue, we collected a limited amount of systematic or quantitative feedback through surveys and polls (mentimeter, zoom, etc.).
- A diversity of engagement modes is critical: webinars, mass emails to policy makers, direct and frequent personalized emails, numerous digital meetings, journal articles, navigating bureaucracies for institutional approval, and frequent submission of document comments—often with deadlines of days to several weeks. We created three policy briefs, 13 journal articles, four Statements sent to 500 + recipients, a SBSTTA (Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice) information document, 12 + webinars (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oku8eTqH_hE), dozens of email chains to various CBD stakeholders, a side event for COP 15 which was co-sponsored by 50 + institutions and NGOs, an information booth at COP 15, and ad hoc responses to many inquiries several multi-page comment submissions to CBD, and ad hoc responses to many inquiries.
- Currently a small fraction of scientists are involved in international biodiversity policy discussions (directly or indirectly); increasing this engagement requires both greater efforts by scientists to understand and join in policy discussions and more frequent and accessible opportunities for scientists to enter the policy realm (Laikre 2010). Bridge organizations and programmes such as (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)IUCN, G-BiKE (Genomic Biodiversity Knowledge for Resilient Ecosystems, EU COST Action), GEO BON (Group on Earth Observation Biodiversity Observation Network, geobon.org) and the SCB (Society for Conservation Biology) provide such opportunities.
- Progress depends on intensive and steadfast commitment from several ‘champions’ in research and policy, far outside their normal job obligations, to create outputs, bring people and groups together, and constantly track many moving parts.
Conclusion
The post-2020 GBF currently includes clearer language and more measurable commitments to genetic diversity conservation, due to clearer scientific consensus and very active participation by conservation geneticists through numerous policy channels and negotiations, though there is scope for improvement in the final negotiations. The role of scientists in the CBD process needs strengthening, via greater involvement of scientists and more invitations for scientists, such as for indicator evaluation and testing (e.g. the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group). Communication between scientific groups, the CBD Secretariat, Parties, the IUCN, IPBES (Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), GEO BON, and other stakeholders during implementation of the GBF is vital for capacity development and shared learning, which will take significant time and effort. We close by emphasizing that although “Ne > 500”, “maintain populations” and other feasible indicators can be implemented at national scales, Parties are urged to remember the spirit of the goal: little to no genetic diversity loss so that populations, species and nature retain adaptive potential.
Acknowledgements
We thank GEO BON and the CBD Secretariat for advice and logistical support. This article is based upon work from COST Action G-BiKE, CA 18134 supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), www.cost.eu. This work was conducted as a part of the “Standardizing, aggregating, analyzing and disseminating global wildlife genetic and genomic data for improved management and advancement of community best practices” Working Group supported by the John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis, funded by the U.S. Geological Survey. LL was supported by Formas (2020-01290), VR (2019-05503), and SEPA. IP-V is supported by the U.S. Geological Survey Powell Center for Synthesis and Analysis.
Disclaimer
Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Stockholm University. Open access funding was provided by Stockholm University. See Acknowledgements for additional information on funding and support.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors have not disclosed any competing interests.
Footnotes
Footnote Group
Contributor Information
Sean Hoban, Email: shoban@mortonarb.org.
Linda Laikre, Email: linda.laikre@popgen.su.se.
References
Untitled section
References
- Baums IB, Baker AC, Davies SW, et al. Considerations for maximizing the adaptive potential of restored coral populations in the western Atlantic. Ecol Appl. 2019;29:e01978. doi: 10.1002/eap.1978.
- Bitter MC, Kapsenberg L, Gattuso J-P, Pfister CA. Standing genetic variation fuels rapid adaptation to ocean acidification. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5821. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13767-1.
- Blomqvist D, Pauliny A, Larsson M, Flodin L-A. Trapped in the extinction vortex? Strong genetic effects in a declining vertebrate population. BMC Evol Biol. 2010;10:33. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-33.
- Bodensteiner BL, Agudelo-Cantero GA, Arietta AZA, et al. Thermal adaptation revisited: how conserved are thermal traits of reptiles and amphibians? J Exp Zool A Ecol Integr Physiol. 2021;335:173–194. doi: 10.1002/jez.2414.
- Bolam FC, Ahumada J, Akçakaya HR, Brooks TM, Elliott W, Hoban S, Mair L, Mallon D, McGowan PJ, Raimondo D, Rodríguez JP. Over half of threatened species require targeted recovery actions to avert human-induced extinction. Front Ecol Environ. 2022 doi: 10.1002/fee.2537.
- Budde KB, Nielsen LR, Ravn HP, Kjær ED. The natural evolutionary potential of tree populations to cope with newly introduced pests and pathogens—lessons learned from forest health catastrophes in recent decades. Curr Forestry Rep. 2016;2:18–29. doi: 10.1007/s40725-016-0029-9.
- Caprioli M, Ambrosini R, Boncoraglio G, et al. Clock gene variation is associated with breeding phenology and maybe under directional selection in the migratory barn swallow. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e35140. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035140.
- CBD 2002. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision VI/26. Strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7200
- CBD 2004. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision VII/30. Strategic plan: future evaluation of progress. Annex 2. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-07/cop-07-dec-30-en.pdf
- CBD 2010. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision X/2. the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-en.pdf
- CBD 2016. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision XIII/28. Indicators for the Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi biodiversity targets. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-28-en.pdf
- CBD 2020a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal, Canada. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5
- CBD 2020b. Zero draft of the post-2020b global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/2/3. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/da8c/9e95/9e9db02aaf68c018c758ff14/wg2020-02-03-en.pdf
- CBD 2020c. Update of the Zero draft of the post-2020c global biodiversity framework. CBD/POST2020c/PREP/2/1. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020c-prep-02-01-en.pdf
- CBD 2020d. Report of the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework on its second meeting. CBD/WG2020/2/4. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/b14d/6af5/a97c4f2c9d58203f5e2e059c/wg2020-02-04-en.pdf
- CBD 2021a. Indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/20. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/a571/b25e/544f7e2b1843a86bb062ad06/sbstta-24-inf-20-en.pdf
- CBD 2021b. First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/3/3. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/914a/eca3/24ad42235033f031badf61b1/wg2020-03-03-en.pdf
- CBD 2021c. Proposed headline indicators of the monitoring framework for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/3/3/Add.1. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/d716/da69/5e81c8e0faca1db1dd145a59/wg2020-03-03-add1-en.pdf
- CBD 2021d. Proposed monitoring approach and headline, component and complementary indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/3/INF/2. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/437d/a239/12a22f2eaf5e6d103ed9adad/wg2020-03-inf-02-en.pdf
- CBD 2022a. Report of the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework on its fourth meeting. CBD/WG2020/4/4. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3303/d892/4fd11c27963bd3f826a961e1/wg2020-04-04-en.pdf
- CBD 2022b. Report of the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework on its third meeting (part II). CBD/WG2020/3/7. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/50c9/a685/3844e4030802e9325bc5e0b4/wg2020-03-07-en.pdf
- CBD 2022c. Report of the open-ended working group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework on its fourth meeting. CBD/WG2020/4/4. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3303/d892/4fd11c27963bd3f826a961e1/wg2020-04-04-en.pdf
- CBD 2022d. Outcomes of the work of the informal group on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/5/2. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/dfeb/e742/b936c09eae9dd558c1310b5b/wg2020-05-02-en.pdf
- CBD 2022e. Draft decisions for the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. CBD/COP/15/2. Page 18. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/c9de/d8ef/7225d7bb822f39ad3426c52b/cop-15-02-en.pdf
- CBD 2022f. Glossary for the first draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. CBD/WG2020/4/2. UNEP. URL https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e2dd/6b6c/eaa4784e9111c58d6fd787ae/wg2020-04-02-en.pdf
- Des Roches S, Pendleton LH, Shapiro B, Palkovacs EP. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:574–582. doi: 10.1038/s41559-021-01403-5.
- Díaz S, Zafra-Calvo N, Purvis A, et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science. 2020;370:411–413. doi: 10.1126/science.abe1530.
- DiBattista JD. Patterns of genetic variation in anthropogenically impacted populations. Conserv Genet. 2008;9:141–156. doi: 10.1007/s10592-007-9317-z.
- Exposito-Alonso M, Booker TR, Czech L, et al. Genetic diversity loss in the Anthropocene. Science. 2022;377:1431–1435. doi: 10.1126/science.abn5642.
- Flood PJ, Hancock AM. The genomic basis of adaptation in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2017;36:88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2017.02.003.
- Forester BR, Beever EA, Darst C, Szymanski J, Funk WC. Linking evolutionary potential to extinction risk: applications and future directions. Front Ecol Environ. 2022;20(9):507–515. doi: 10.1002/fee.2552.
- Frankham R, Bradshaw CJ, Brook BW. Genetics in conservation management: revised recommendations for the 50/500 rules, red List criteria and population viability analyses. Biol Cons. 2014;170:56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.12.036.
- Frankham R. Evaluation of proposed genetic goals and targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conserv Genet. 2022;23:865–870. doi: 10.1007/s10592-022-01459-1.
- Hoban Sean, et al. Effective population size remains a suitable, pragmatic indicator of genetic diversity for all species, including forest trees. Biol Conserv. 2021;253:108906. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108906.
- Hoban SM, Hauffe HC, Pérez-Espona S, et al. Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Conserv Genet Resour. 2013;5:593–598. doi: 10.1007/s12686-013-9859-y.
- Hoban S, Bruford M, D’Urban Jackson J, et al. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol Conserv. 2020;248:108654. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108654.
- Hoban S, Campbell CD, da Silva JM, et al. Genetic diversity is considered important but interpreted narrowly in country reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity: current actions and indicators are insufficient. Biol Conserv. 2021;261:109233. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109233.
- Hoban S, Bruford MW, Funk WC, et al. Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible. Bioscience. 2021;71:964–976. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biab054.
- Hoban S, da Silva J, Mastretta-Yanes A, et al. Monitoring status and trends in genetic diversity for the Convention on Biological Diversity: an ongoing assessment of genetic indicators in nine countries. Authorea Preprints. 2022 doi: 10.22541/au.166627692.27077414/v1.
- Holderegger R, Balkenhol N, Bolliger J, et al. Conservation genetics: linking science with practice. Mol Ecol. 2019;28:3848–3856. doi: 10.1111/mec.15202.
- Hollingsworth PM, O’Brien D, Ennos RA, et al. Scotland’s biodiversity progress to 2020 Aichi targets: conserving genetic diversity – development of a national approach for addressing Aichi Biodiversity Target 13 that includes wild species. Inverness: Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness; 2020.
- Hughes AR, Stachowicz JJ. Genetic diversity enhances the resistance of a seagrass ecosystem to disturbance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:8998–9002. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0402642101.
- Kershaw F, Bruford MW, Funk WC, et al. The coalition for conservation genetics: working across organizations to build capacity and achieve change in policy and practice. Conserv Sci Prac. 2022 doi: 10.1111/csp2.12635.
- Khoury CK, Amariles D, Soto JS, et al. Comprehensiveness of conservation of useful wild plants: an operational indicator for biodiversity and sustainable development targets. Ecol Indic. 2019;98:420–429. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.016.
- Khoury CK, Carver D, Greene SL, et al. Crop wild relatives of the United States require urgent conservation action. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117:33351–33357. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2007029117.
- Laikre L. Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conserv Genet. 2010;11:349–354. doi: 10.1007/s10592-009-0037-4.
- Laikre L, Hohenlohe PA, Allendorf FW, et al. Authors’ Reply to Letter to the Editor: Continued improvement to genetic diversity indicator for CBD. Conserv Genet. 2021;22:533–536. doi: 10.1007/s10592-021-01359-w.
- Laikre L, Hoban S, Bruford MW et al. (2020) Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity. Sci 367:1083–1085
- Leigh DM, Hendry AP, Vázquez-Domínguez E, Friesen VL. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol Appl. 2019;12:1505–1512. doi: 10.1111/eva.12810.
- LeRoy CJ, Whitham TG, Wooley SC, Marks JC. Within-species variation in foliar chemistry influences leaf-litter decomposition in a Utah river. J North Am Benthol Soc. 2007;26:426–438. doi: 10.1899/06-113.1.
- Manhard CV, Joyce JE, Gharrett AJ. Evolution of phenology in a salmonid population: a potential adaptive response to climate change. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2017;74:1519–1527. doi: 10.1139/cjfas-2017-0028.
- O’Brien D, Laikre L, Hoban S, et al. Bringing together approaches to reporting on within species genetic diversity. J Appl Ecol. 2022;59:2227–2233. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14225.
- OECD (2019), “The Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework: Targets, indicators and measurability implications at global and national level”, November version.
- Posledovich D, Ekblom R, Laikre L (2021) Mapping and monitoring of genetic diversity in Sweden: A proposal for species, methods and costs. Report 6959, Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
- Pinsky ML, Palumbi SR. Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic diversity in overfished populations. Mol Ecol. 2014;23:29–39. doi: 10.1111/mec.12509.
- Schweitzer JA, Fischer DG, Rehill BJ, et al. Forest gene diversity is correlated with the composition and function of soil microbial communities. Popul Ecol. 2011;53:35–46. doi: 10.1007/s10144-010-0252-3.
- Taft HR, McCoskey DN, Miller JM, et al. Research–management partnerships: an opportunity to integrate genetics in conservation actions. Conserv Sci Prac. 2020 doi: 10.1111/csp2.218.
- Taylor H, Dussex N, van Heezik Y. Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2017;10:231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.001.
- Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SLL, et al. A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science. 2014;346:241–244. doi: 10.1126/science.1257484.
- Torres-Florez JP, Johnson WE, Nery MF, Eizirik E, Oliveira-Miranda MA, Galetti PM. The coming of age of conservation genetics in Latin America: what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Conserv Genet. 2018;19(1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s10592-017-1006-y.
- Turner TL, von Wettberg EJ, Nuzhdin SV. Genomic analysis of differentiation between soil types reveals candidate genes for local adaptation in Arabidopsis lyrata. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003183.
- Willi Y, Kristensen TN, Sgrò CM, Weeks AR, Ørsted M, Hoffmann AA. Conservation genetics as a management tool: the five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2022;119(1):e2105076119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2105076119.
- Xu H, Cao Y, Yu D, et al. Ensuring effective implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity targets. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5:411–418. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-01375-y.