Skip to main content

Authors’ Reply to Letter to the Editor: Continued improvement to genetic diversity indicator for CBD

A Correction to this article was published on 26 May 2021

The Original Article was published on 22 April 2021

This article has been updated

We appreciate the encouraging response to our call for indicators for genetic diversity within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD (Laikre et al. 2020; Hoban et al. 2020). In agreement with us, Frankham (2021) highlights the urgent necessity for the CBD to include an indicator that tracks the maintenance of genetic diversity within populations of all species—wild and domestic. Draft CBD Headline indicators (which all CBD Parties will need to report) do not include genetic diversity within populations of wild species (CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.1).

The genetically effective population size (Ne) is a metric that quantifies the rate of genetic change within a population. We welcome Frankham’s (2021) comments on the relevance of this important parameter, and the appropriate indicator threshold (Ne > 500 or Nc > 5000; Nc = adult census size, the number of sexually mature individuals). Frankham (2021) suggests rewording our proposed indicator 1, “The number of populations [or breeds] within species with an effective population size > 500 compared to the number < 500”, to “The number of populations (or breeds) with > 5000 mature individuals compared to the number < 5000.” The proposed rephrasing coincides with our suggestion that in the absence of empirical knowledge on Ne, the relationship Ne/Nc ≈ 0.1 can be assumed, substituting Nc ≈ 5000 for Ne ≈ 500 (Fig. 1). We included published estimates of Ne from many populations (Hoban et al. 2020, 2021), recognizing they were not always directly comparable depending on methods used; we appreciate Frankham’s examination of subsets of estimates, which also supports a ratio of approximately 0.1 for many species.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual diagram for applying the Ne indicator (Hoban et al. 2020). If direct and robust estimates of Ne are available, they should be used. If only general information is available about factors affecting the ratio of Ne to census population size (Nc), then this information should be used to calibrate estimates of Nc from the specific population against the Ne > 500 threshold. If no information is available, the indicator is applied using estimates of Nc with the threshold Nc > 5000, implicitly assuming Ne/Nc = 0.1

Frankham (2021) proposes that his wording is simpler and more suitable for a policy audience. We agree that Ne may be conceptually challenging, but we remain convinced that, even if Nc > 5000 will often be used as a proxy, the term “genetically effective population size” has important meaning in policy (including the CBD, the EU Biodiversity Strategy, and others) for several reasons:

  1. (1)

    Ne stresses that within-population genetic diversity is the indicator’s focus. We consider it critical to signal to policy makers that census size Nc is not a sufficient metric to track how fast a population loses genetic diversity. The recent CBD document CBD/SBSTTA/24/3Add.2 acknowledges this: “While population abundance is a key factor in the maintenance of genetic diversity, it is not a sufficient indicator since it does not account for within-population genetic diversity”.

  2. (2)

    Including Ne could spur CBD Parties to initiate more genetic monitoring efforts that will increase availability of robust estimates of Ne or taxon-specific Ne/Nc ratios. Also, Ne estimates should rapidly increase with the broadening availability of genomic and bioinformatics resources and large-scale databases (Santiago et al. 2020; Lawrence et al. 2019).

  3. (3)

    The CBD has used Ne concepts since it first included threatened animal breeds as an indicator. Livestock breeds have been considered as threatened or endangered based on Ne thresholds since at least 1992, when Ne < 200 was used to signal genetic erosion (Maijala 1992). Ne features prominently and is explained in detail in numerous Food and Agriculture Organization manuals, and the US endangered species recovery planning, the zoo community, and others are also already utilizing Ne for monitoring genetic diversity.

  4. (4)

    Although Ne/Nc≈0.1 is an appropriate general estimate, Frankham and we ourselves are mindful that there is substantial variation; Frankham et al. (2019) provide a thorough analysis in this context. The indicator Ne > 500 represents a reminder that maintaining genetic diversity within populations can sometimes require smaller or larger census sizes than Nc = 5000, and allows the use of adequate Ne/Nc estimates when available.

  5. (5)

    Nc can be even more difficult to estimate than Ne, e.g. in many mobile, nocturnal, subterranean, or otherwise hard to count organisms.

Frankham (2021) rightly states that Ne can be complex, but theoretical developments and simulated and empirical data are consistently improving our knowledge and tools (Hössjer et al. 2016; Wang 2016; Ryman et al. 2019; Santiago et al. 2020). Our approach allows new information to be used to adjust Ne/Nc. In addition, the relationship between ploidy level and loss of diversity is likely not as straightforward as suggested by Frankham. For example, approximately 50% of all plant species are polyploids, and most, but not all, polyploids lose diversity at the same rate (1/2Ne) as diploids (Soltis and Soltis 2000).

Conservation geneticists worldwide are working together to rapidly provide science-based guidelines for Goals, Targets, and Indicators for the post-2020 CBD framework. The Species Information Centre at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has agreed to test indicators 1 and 2 (Hoban et al. 2020) on taxa from the Swedish Red List, and a G-BiKE (https://sites.google.com/fmach.it/g-bike-genetics-eu/home) working group is compiling data on indicator 3. We look forward to collaborating with Frankham and others to achieve improved CBD indicators for genetic diversity. Genetic diversity must be conserved as a foundation for all biodiversity, adaptive potential, resilience and nature’s contributions to society.

Change history

References

  • Frankham R (2021) Suggested improvements to proposed genetic indicator for CBD. Conserv Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01357-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankham R, Ballou JD, Ralls K et al (2019) A practical guide for genetic management of fragmented animal and plant populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford (online Appendix 2). http://www.oup.co.uk/companion/FrankhamPG

  • Hoban S, Bruford M, D’Urban Jackson J et al (2020) Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biol Conserv 248:108654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoban S, Paz-Vinas I, Aitken S et al (2021) Effective population size remains a suitable, pragmatic indicator of genetic diversity for all species, including forest trees. Biol Conserv 253:108906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hössjer O, Laikre L, Ryman N (2016) Effective sizes and time to migration–drift equilibrium in geographically subdivided populations. Theor Popul Biol 112:139–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laikre L, Hoban S, Bruford MW et al (2020) Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity. Science 367:1083–1085

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence ER, Benavente JN, Matte J-M et al (2019) Geo-referenced population-specific microsatellite data across American continents, the MacroPopGen Database. Sci Data 6:14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0024-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Maijala K (1992) Monitoring animal genetic resources and criteria for prioritization of breeds. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper (FAO)

  • Ryman N, Laikre L, Hössjer O (2019) Do estimates of contemporary effective population size tell us what we want to know? Mol Ecol 28:1904–1918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santiago E, Novo I, Pardiñas AF et al (2020) Recent demographic history inferred by high-resolution analysis of linkage disequilibrium. Mol Biol Evol 37:3642–3653

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soltis P, Soltis D (2000) The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7051–7057

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J (2016) A comparison of single-sample estimators of effective population sizes from genetic marker data. Mol Ecol 25:4692–4711

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge ongoing collaboration with the GEO BON Genetic Composition Working Group, the IUCN Conservation Genetics Specialist Group, the Society for Conservation Biology Conservation Genetics Working Group, and the EU Cost Action Genomic Biodiversity Knowledge for Resilient Ecosystems (G-BiKE). This publication is based upon work from COST Action G-BiKE, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). VR and Formas supported L.L. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the United States Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Linda Laikre or Sean Hoban.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laikre, L., Hohenlohe, P.A., Allendorf, F.W. et al. Authors’ Reply to Letter to the Editor: Continued improvement to genetic diversity indicator for CBD. Conserv Genet 22, 533–536 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01359-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-021-01359-w