Geology topics

Rob Ogden

Publications and source records attributed to Rob Ogden.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2023

A pragmatic approach for integrating molecular tools into biodiversity conservation

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.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2023

Genetic diversity goals and targets have improved, but remain insufficient for clear implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

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.

Conservation Genetics↗

USGS2022

The Coalition for Conservation Genetics: Working across organizations to build capacity and achieve change in policy and practice

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.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2021

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.

BioScience↗

USGS2021

Authors’ reply to letter to the editor: Continued improvement to genetic diversity indicator for CBD

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).

Conservation Genetics↗

USGS2020

Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved

The 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will soon agree to a post-2020 global framework for conserving the three elements of biodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) while ensuring sustainable development and benefit sharing. As the most significant global conservation policy mechanism, the new CBD framework has far-reaching consequences- it will guide conservation actions and reporting for each member country until 2050. In previous CBD strategies, as well as other major conservation policy mechanisms, targets and indicators for genetic diversity (variation at the DNA level within species, which facilitates species adaptation and ecosystem function) were undeveloped and focused on species of agricultural relevance. We assert that, to meet global conservation goals, genetic diversity within all species, not just domesticated species and their wild relatives, must be conserved and monitored using appropriate metrics . Building on suggestions in a recent Letter in Science (Laikre et al., 2020) we expand argumentation for three new, pragmatic genetic indicators and modifications to two current indicators for maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of all species, and provide guidance on their practical use. The indicators are: 1) the number of populations with effective population size above versus below 500, 2) the proportion of populations maintained within species, 3) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods. We also present and discuss Goals and Action Targets for post-2020 biodiversity conservation which are connected to these indicators and underlying data. These pragmatic indicators and goals have utility beyond the CBD; they should benefit conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity via national and global policy for decades to come.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2020

Proposed species extinction target fails to capture the diversity in biodiversity

We believe the 20 species extinction metric is a retrograde proposal, which does not adequately consider the lessons learnt from the 2020 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Whilst having a single simple overarching target is appealing, we believe a positively-framed target will garner support, rather than one that aims to, at best, limit negative impacts. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s zero draft states that future targets should be clear, consistent and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timely). Extinction is problematic as a standalone target: it can take decades to demonstrate and therefore cannot be measured over a relevant time-period, and is biased towards terrestrial vertebrates. The proposal is not scalable across nations, nor is it equitable,one of the key aspirations of the zero draft. Many industrialised countries are unlikely to find the targets challenging because their most vulnerable species have largely gone extinct; tropical species-rich countries, where much biodiversity is yet to be catalogued, will find the targets demanding and unachievable in the short- or medium-term. Despite the authors’ statement to the contrary, species extinction is not necessarily relevant to other aspects of biodiversity, such as ecosystems or genetic diversity. A species may be reduced to a small fraction of its former extent without going extinct. However, its ecosystem will be altered, and its contribution to ecosystem functions and the socio-economic benefits it provided will be lost. The focus on extinction is not novel and has not been particularly successful to date, as demonstrated by the decline of emblematic species such as rhinoceroses. Alternatively, composite indicators can be used to capture biodiversity’s three fundamental components (ecosystems, species and genetic diversity). In conclusion, we cannot support a target that fails to represent the diversity in biodiversity and, in the authors’ words, could be met despite “wholesale and damaging changes to life on Earth.”

Science↗