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

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

Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible

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

Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible

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

Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible

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

Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible

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

Multinational evaluation of genetic diversity indicators for the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

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

Webbaserad enkät om viltforskningen finansierad av Naturvårdsverket 2004–2014

Naturvårdsverket genomför 2017–2018 en utvärdering av viltforskningen som finansierats med medel ur Viltvårdsfonden åren 2003–2014. Utvärderingen består av tre delar: (1) en bibliometrisk analys av hur mycket som forskningen under perioden senare har citerats, (2) en webbaserad enkätundersökning om viltforskningen och dess relevans bland intressenter som deltar i eller på annat sätt berörs av viltförvaltningen i Sverige, och (3) en summerande utvärdering under 2018 av en internationell vetenskaplig expertpanel. Den här rapporten redovisar resultaten från den webbaserade enkätundersökningen som genomfördes 23 maj till 30 juni 2017 Syftet med enkäten var att få en bild av i vilken grad den finansierade forskningen gett relevant kunskap till stöd för en hållbar förvaltning av vilt i Sverige, om den kommunicerats på bra sätt samt vad som eventuellt saknas.As a part of the evaluation of the wildlife research funded 2004–2014 by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) using the Swedish Wildlife Management Fund, a web-based survey was carried out in 2017. Its purpose was to examine to what extent this research yielded relevant results and knowledge for sustainable wildlife management in Sweden, if it was disseminated and communicated in good ways, and if any important aspects were missing

Introduction and the EU 2013-2018 guidelines for assessing Favourable Con-servation Status of species

Introduction and the EU 2013-2018 guidelines for assessing Favourable Conservation Status of species The conservation status of the habitats and species listed in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) is to be assessed and reported by the European Union's Member States every six years according to the Directive's Article 17. The previous time was in year 2013, and for the reporting period 2013-2018 updated guidelines were published in May 2017 (1). The assessment of conservation status for species requires the setting of "favourable reference values" for range (FRR) and population size (FRP); the updated guidelines introduce a stepwise approach for estimating these reference values and were made clearer. Also it is clearer that, e.g. for the large carnivore species, the Favourable Reference Population (FRP) is larger than the Minimum Viable Population sizes for both genetic and demographic long-term viability. The latter was more unclear in the 2011 reporting guidelines. For example, Nilsson (2) demonstrated that MVPs fulfilling the <10% extinction risk /100 years criterion did not by far meet recognized criteria for genetic viability. Since large carnivore populations often occur in multiple adjacent biogeographic zones or countries, i.e. are transboundary, the delimitation of the biologically functional population, and to what extent gene flow occurs between subpopulations in different zones or countries, are key issues in the assessment of reference values for their long-term genetic viability. This workshop aims at synthesizing knowledge and views from science and government agencies to help in such conservation status assessments and to help increase successful co-management and conservation of transboundary large carnivore populations. References: (1) Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive - Explanatory Notes and Guidelines for the period 2013-2018. Final version - May 2017. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/d0eb5cef-a216-4cad-8e77-6e4839a5471d/Reporting%20guidelines%20Article%2017%20final%20May%202017.pdf (2) Population viability analyses of the Scandinavian populations of bear (Ursus arctos), lynx (Lynx lynx) and wolverine (Gulo gulo). http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-6549-2.pdf?pid=7417peerReviewe

Complementary analyses of geneticMinimum Viable Population size ofScandinavian bears (Ursus arctos)

This short report presents the results of analyses and assessment of genetic Minimum Viable Population size of Scandinavian bears (Ursus arctos) that complement the population viability analyses already performed by Torbjörn Nilsson (2013). This is one of the scientific reports underpinning the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s Article-17 reporting in 2013 of Favourable Reference Population size for the brown bear in Sweden. It presents complementary population viability analyses of the Scandinavian population with the VORTEX software to quantify minimum viable population size (MVP) estimates in relation to two criteria for genetic viability. The analyses were based on simulations without immigration and mutation, and using the same demographic data from empirical studies of the Scandinavian population as were used in a previous SEPA report (6549), except for the updated data on the reproductive success of males. The genetic MVP corresponding to < 5% loss of genetic variability (i.e. heterozygosity) in 100 years was estimated at > 380 bears when effects of catastrophes were not simulated, and at > 400 bears when effects of rare catastrophes were included. The genetic MVP corresponding to an effective population size (Ne) of > 500 was estimated at > 2250 bears when effects of catastrophes were not simulated, and at > 2350 bears when rare catastrophes were included. The study approach and results are discussed, for example, in relation to the two MVP criteria, FRP, and to the degree of genetic differentiation and isolation of the Scandinavian bear population

Population genomics reveals lack of greater white-fronted introgression into the Swedish lesser white-fronted goose

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