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

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Ecol. Lett. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Multinational evaluation of genetic diversity indicators for the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
Ecology Letters ( IF 7.6 ) Pub Date : 2024-07-02 , DOI: 10.1111/ele.14461
Alicia Mastretta‐Yanes _{1,

2,

3} , Jessica M. da Silva _{4,

5} , Catherine E. Grueber ₆ , Luis Castillo‐Reina ₇ , Viktoria Köppä ₈ , Brenna R. Forester ₉ , W. Chris Funk _{10,

11} , Myriam Heuertz ₁₂ , Fumiko Ishihama ₁₃ , Rebecca Jordan ₁₄ , Joachim Mergeay _{7,

15} , Ivan Paz‐Vinas _{10,

16} , Victor Julio Rincon‐Parra ₁₇ , Maria Alejandra Rodriguez‐Morales ₁₈ , Libertad Arredondo‐Amezcua ₁₉ , Gaëlle Brahy ₁₂ , Matt DeSaix ₁₀ , Lily Durkee _{11,

20} , Ashley Hamilton _{21,

22} , Margaret E. Hunter ₂₃ , Austin Koontz ₂₂ , Iris Lang ₂₄ , María Camila Latorre‐Cárdenas ₂₅ , Tanya Latty ₆ , Alexander Llanes‐Quevedo ₂₆ , Anna J. MacDonald ₂₇ , Meg Mahoney _{11,

28} , Caitlin Miller _{10,

11} , Juan Francisco Ornelas ₂₉ , Santiago Ramírez‐Barahona ₃₀ , Erica Robertson _{10,

11} , Isa‐Rita M. Russo ₃₁ , Metztli Arcila Santiago ₃₂ , Robyn E. Shaw ₃₃ , Glenn M. Shea _{34,

35} , Per Sjögren‐Gulve ₃₆ , Emma Suzuki Spence ₃₇ , Taylor Stack ₃₈ , Sofía Suárez _{32,

39} , Akio Takenaka ₁₃ , Henrik Thurfjell ₄₀ , Sheela Turbek ₁₀ , Marlien van der Merwe ₄₁ , Fleur Visser _{42,

43} , Ana Wegier ₃₉ , Georgina Wood _{44,

45} , Eugenia Zarza _{1,

46} , Linda Laikre ₈ , Sean Hoban _{21,

22}

Affiliation

Consejo Nacional de Humanidades Ciencias y Tecnología (CONAHCYT) Ciudad de México Mexico
Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) Ciudad de México Mexico
Wildlife Ecology and Management University of Freiburg Freiburg im Breisgau Germany
South African National Biodiversity Institute Kirstenbosch Research Centre Cape Town South Africa
Centre for Ecological Genomics and Wildlife Conservation University of Johannesburg Johannesburg South Africa
Faculty of Science, School of Life and Environmental Sciences The University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
Ecology, Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Biology KU Leuven Leuven Belgium
Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fort Collins Colorado USA
Department of Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
Graduate Degree Program in Ecology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
BIOGECO INRAE, University of Bordeaux Cestas France
National Institute for Environmental Studies Tsukuba Ibaraki Japan
CSIRO Environment Sandy Bay Tasmania Australia
Research Institute for Nature and Forest Geraardsbergen Belgium
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 LEHNA UMR 5023, CNRS, ENTPE Villeurbanne France
Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources Research Institute Bogotá Colombia
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science Javeriana University Bogotá Colombia
Independent Mountain Ecology Researcher Michoacan Mexico
Department of Agricultural Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
Committee on Evolutionary Biology University of Chicago Chicago Illinois USA
Center for Tree Science The Morton Arboretum Illinois USA
U.S. Geological Survey Wetland and Aquatic Research Center Gainesville Florida USA
Conservatoire d'espaces Naturels d'Occitanie Montpellier France
Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ciudad de Mexico Mexico
Museo de Zoología “Alfonso L. Herrera”, Departamento Biología Evolutiva, Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ciudad de México Ciudad de Mexico Mexico
Australian Antarctic Division, Department of Climate Change Energy, the Environment and Water Kingston Tasmania Australia
Department of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
Departamento de Biología Evolutiva Instituto de Ecología, A.C. (INECOL) Xalapa Veracruz Mexico
Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ciudad de Mexico Mexico
School of Biosciences Cardiff University Cardiff UK
Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ciudad de México Mexico
Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology The Australian National University Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia
Sydney School of Veterinary Science, B01 University of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
Australian Museum Research Institute The Australian Museum Sydney New South Wales Australia
Nordic Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology Uppsala Sweden
Department of Public and Ecosystem Health Cornell University Ithaca New York USA
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA
Laboratorio de Genética de la Conservación, Jardín Botánico, Instituto de Biología Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Ciudad de México Mexico
Swedish Species Information Center Swedish University of Agricultural Science Uppsala Sweden
Research Centre for Ecosystem Resilience Botanic Gardens of Sydney Sydney New South Wales Australia
Conservation Genetics Laboratory University of Liège Liège Belgium
Zoology & Entomology Department University of Pretoria Pretoria South Africa
UWA Oceans Institute University of Western Australia Crawley Western Australia Australia
School of Biological Sciences University of Western Australia Crawley Western Australia Australia
Departamento de Ciencias de la Sustentabilidad El Colegio De La Frontera Sur Tapachula Chiapas Mexico

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.

中文翻译：

昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架遗传多样性指标的多国评估

根据最近通过的《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》，196 个缔约方承诺报告所有物种的遗传多样性状况。为了便于报告，制定了三项遗传多样性指标，其中两项重点关注有助于遗传多样性保护的过程：维持遗传独特的种群和确保种群足够大以维持遗传多样性。这些指标的主要优点是无论有或没有基于 DNA 的数据都可以对其进行估计。然而，证明其可行性需要解决使用从不同来源、不同分类群体以及不同社会经济地位和生物多样性水平的国家收集的数据的方法学挑战。在这里，我们评估了 919 个类群的遗传指标，代表 9 个国家的 5271 个种群，其中包括生物多样性丰富的国家和发展中经济体。百分之八十三的评估类群拥有可用于计算至少一项指标的数据。我们的结果表明，尽管大多数物种维持着大部分种群，但 58% 的物种种群太小而无法维持遗传多样性。此外，遗传指标值表明，世界自然保护联盟红色名录状态和其他举措未能评估遗传状态，凸显了遗传指标的至关重要性。

更新日期：2024-07-02

点击分享查看原文

点击收藏

公开下载

阅读更多本刊新发论文本刊介绍/投稿指南