Search

Molecular tools are increasingly applied for assessing and monitoring biodiversity and informing conservation action. While recent developments in genetic and genomic methods provide greater sensitivity in analysis and the capacity to address new questions, they are not equally available to all practitioners: There is considerable bias across institutions and countries in access to technologies, funding, and training. Consequently, in many cases, more accessible traditional genetic data (e.g., microsatellites) are still utilized for making conservation decisions. Conservation approaches need to be pragmatic by tackling clearly defined management questions and using the most appropriate methods available, while maximizing the use of limited resources. Here we present some key questions to consider when applying the molecular toolbox for accessible and actionable conservation management. Finally, we highlight a number of important steps to be addressed in a collaborative way, which can facilitate the broad integration of molecular data into conservation. Molecular tools are increasingly applied in conservation management; however, they are not equally available to all practitioners. We here provide key questions when establishing a conservation genetic study and highlight important steps which need to be addressed when these tools are globally applied.image

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for

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.

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods for

Signatories to the Antarctic Treaty System’s Environmental Protocol are committed to preventing incursions of non-native species into Antarctica, but systematic surveillance is rare. Environmental DNA (eDNA) methods provide new opportunities for enhancing detection of non-native species and biosecurity monitoring. To be effective for Antarctic biosecurity, eDNA tests must have appropriate sensitivity and specificity to distinguish non-native from native Antarctic species, and be fit-for-purpose. This requires knowledge of the priority risk species or taxonomic groups for which eDNA surveillance will be informative, validated eDNA assays for those species or groups, and reference DNA sequences for both target non-native and related native Antarctic species. Here, we used an expert elicitation process and decision-by-consensus approach to identify and assess priority biosecurity risks for the Australian Antarctic Program (AAP) in East Antarctica, including identifying high priority non-native species and their potential transport pathways. We determined that the priority targets for biosecurity monitoring were not individual species, but rather broader taxonomic groups such as mussels (Mytilus species), tunicates (Ascidiacea), springtails (Collembola), and grasses (Poaceae). These groups each include multiple species with high risks of introduction to and/or establishment in Antarctica. The most appropriate eDNA methods for the AAP must be capable of detecting a range of species within these high-risk groups (e.g., eDNA metabarcoding). We conclude that the most beneficial Antarctic eDNA biosecurity applications include surveillance of marine species in nearshore environments, terrestrial invertebrates, and biofouling species on vessels visiting Antarctica. An urgent need exists to identify suitable genetic markers for detecting priority species groups, establish baseline terrestrial and marine biodiversity for Antarctic stations, and develop eDNA sampling methods f

Genetic diversity is one of the three main levels of biodiversity recognised in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Fundamental for species adaptation to environmental change, genetic diversity is nonetheless under-reported within global and national indicators. When it is reported, the focus is often narrow and confined to domesticated or other commercial species. Several approaches have recently been developed to address this shortfall in reporting on genetic diversity of wild species. While multiplicity of approaches is helpful in any development process, it can also lead to confusion among policy makers and heighten a perception that conservation genetics is too abstract to be of use to organisations and governments. As the developers of five of the different approaches, we have come together to explain how various approaches relate to each other and propose a scorecard, as a unifying reporting mechanism for genetic diversity. Policy implications. We believe the proposed combined approach captures the strengths of its components and is practical for all nations and subnational governments. It is scalable and can be used to evaluate species conservation projects as well as genetic conservation projects.

The Coalition for Conservation Genetics (CCG) brings together four eminent organizations with the shared goal of improving the integration of genetic information into conservation policy and practice. We provide a historical context of conservation genetics as a field and reflect on current barriers to conserving genetic diversity, highlighting the need for collaboration across traditional divides, international partnerships, and coordinated advocacy. We then introduce the CCG and illustrate through examples how a coalition approach can leverage complementary expertise and improve the organizational impact at multiple levels. The CCG has proven particularly successful at implementing large synthesis-type projects, training early-career scientists, and advising policy makers. Achievements to date highlight the potential for the CCG to make effective contributions to practical conservation policy and management that no one “parent” organization could achieve on its own. Finally, we reflect on the lessons learned through forming the CCG, and our vision for the future.

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.