Abstract
Within-population genetic diversity underpins wild population resilience and in turn species and ecosystem resilience. The rapidly accelerating biodiversity crisis is motivating the use of both legacy and new datasets, from molecular data and ecological proxies, to inform genetic management and policy. In this Review, we synthesize examples of the integration of genetic principles across data, management and policy scales and illustrate how emerging strategies can halt the erosion of genetic diversity. Biodiversity conservation science increasingly invokes large, heterogeneous, aggregate datasets to identify eco-evolutionary processes that drive change as well as set priorities for policymakers and land managers. Deploying this knowledge to address issues that erode within-population genetic resilience is essential to biodiversity conservation. With careful appreciation of population genetic principles, all available data, from DNA-based studies to ecosystem monitoring, can be recruited towards comprehensive conservation genetics, supporting action across levels of governance. A critical mass of highly diverse datasets and knowledge types is increasingly contributing to legislation, policy and guidelines to monitor genetic processes in nature and, ultimately, protect the richness and resilience of biodiversity.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss
Genome engineering in biodiversity conservation and restoration
Monitoring of species’ genetic diversity in Europe varies greatly and overlooks potential climate change impacts
References
Des Roches, S., Pendleton, L. H., Shapiro, B. & Palkovacs, E. P. Conserving intraspecific variation for nature’s contributions to people. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 574–582 (2021).
Google Scholar
Frankham, R. Genetics and extinction. Biol. Conserv. 126, 131–140 (2005).
Google Scholar
Exposito-Alonso, M. et al. Genetic diversity loss in the Anthropocene. Science 377, 1431–1435 (2022).
Google Scholar
Shaw, R. E. et al. Global meta-analysis shows action is needed to halt genetic diversity loss. Nature 638, 704–710 (2025).
Google Scholar
Leigh, D. M., Hendry, A. P., Vázquez-Domínguez, E. & Friesen, V. L. Estimated six per cent loss of genetic variation in wild populations since the industrial revolution. Evol. Appl. 12, 1505–1512 (2019).
Google Scholar
Frankel, O. H. Genetic conservation: our evolutionary responsibility. Genetics 78, 53–65 (1974).
Google Scholar
Franklin, I. R. in Conservation Biology: An Evolutionary-Ecological Perspective (eds Soule, M. E. and Wilcox, B. A.) 135–149 (Sinauer, 1980).
Frankel, O. H. & Soulé, M. E. Conservation and Evolution (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).
Neve, P., Vila-Aiub, M. & Roux, F. Evolutionary-thinking in agricultural weed management. New Phytol. 184, 783–793 (2009).
Google Scholar
Sgrò, C. M., Lowe, A. J. & Hoffmann, A. A. Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol. Appl. 4, 326–337 (2010).
Google Scholar
Ramsay, M., Brunner, H. G. & Djikeng, A. Leveraging genomic diversity to promote human and animal health. Commun. Biol. 2, 463 (2019).
Google Scholar
Laikre, L. et al. Post-2020 goals overlook genetic diversity. Science 367, 1083–1085 (2020).
Google Scholar
Taft, H. R. et al. Research–management partnerships: an opportunity to integrate genetics in conservation actions. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e218 (2020).
Google Scholar
Taylor, H. R., Dussex, N. & van Heezik, Y. Bridging the conservation genetics gap by identifying barriers to implementation for conservation practitioners. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 231–242 (2017).
Torres-Florez, J. P. et al. The coming of age of conservation genetics in Latin America: what has been achieved and what needs to be done. Conserv. Genet. 19, 1–15 (2018).
Google Scholar
Bertola, L. D. et al. A pragmatic approach for integrating molecular tools into biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 6, e13053 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kershaw, F. et al. The coalition for conservation genetics – working across organizations to build capacity and achieve change in policy and practice. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4, e12635 (2022).
Google Scholar
Frankham, R. et al. A Practical Guide for Genetic Management of Fragmented Animal and Plant Populations (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G. & Waples, R. S. Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 25–33 (2007).
Google Scholar
Hvilsom, C. et al. Selecting Species and Populations for Monitoring of Genetic Diversity (IUCN, 2022).
Manel, S. & Holderegger, R. Ten years of landscape genetics. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 614–621 (2013).
Google Scholar
Santiago, E. et al. Recent demographic history inferred by high-resolution analysis of linkage disequilibrium. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 3642–3653 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hoban, S. et al. Global genetic diversity status and trends: towards a suite of essential biodiversity variables (EBVs) for genetic composition. Biol. Rev. 97, 1511–1538 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ashley, M. V. et al. Evolutionarily enlightened management. Biol. Conserv. 111, 115–123 (2003).
Google Scholar
Cook, C. N. & Sgrò, C. M. Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation. Conserv. Biol. 31, 501–512 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hoban, S. et al. Global commitments to conserving and monitoring genetic diversity are now necessary and feasible. BioScience 71, 964–976 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hoban, S. et al. DNA-based studies and genetic diversity indicator assessments are complementary approaches to conserving evolutionary potential. Conserv. Genet. 25, 1147–1153 (2024).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. L., Thia, J. A. & Hoffmann, A. A. How can genomics help or hinder wildlife conservation? Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 12, 45–68 (2024).
Google Scholar
Gutierrez, R. J. & Carey, A. B. (eds). Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1985).
Hung, T. H. et al. Range-wide differential adaptation and genomic offset in critically endangered Asian rosewoods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2301603120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hartvig, I. et al. Conservation genetics of the critically endangered Siamese rosewood (Dalbergia cochinchinensis): recommendations for management and sustainable use. Conserv. Genet. 21, 677–692 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hedrick, P. W. Genetics of Populations 2nd edn (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2000).
Stange, M., Barrett, R. D. H. & Hendry, A. P. The importance of genomic variation for biodiversity, ecosystems and people. Nat. Rev. Genet. 22, 89–105 (2021).
Google Scholar
Pelletier, F., Garant, D. & Hendry, A. P. Eco-evolutionary dynamics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1483–1489 (2009).
Google Scholar
Frankham, R., Ballou, J. D. & Briscoe, D. A. Introduction to Conservation Genetics 2nd edn (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).
Pemberton, D. in Saving the Tasmanian Devil: Recovery Through Science-Based Management (eds C. J. Hogg et al.) 11–22 (CSIRO Publishing, 2019).
Hogg, C. J. et al. (eds) Saving the Tasmanian Devil: Recovery Through Science-Based Management (CSIRO Publishing, 2019).
Schraven, A. L. et al. Temporal changes in Tasmanian devil genetic diversity at sites with and without supplementation. Mol. Ecol. 34, e17671 (2025).
Google Scholar
Shaw, R. E. et al. Building meaningful collaboration in conservation genetics and genomics. Conserv. Genet. 25, 1127–1145 (2024).
Google Scholar
Alter, S. E., Rynes, E. & Palumbi, S. R. DNA evidence for historic population size and past ecosystem impacts of gray whales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 15162–15167 (2007).
Google Scholar
Gurgel, C. F. D., Camacho, O., Minne, A. J. P., Wernberg, T. & Coleman, M. A. Marine heatwave drives cryptic loss of genetic diversity in underwater forests. Curr. Biol. 30, 1199–1206.e2 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kleinman-Ruiz, D. et al. Genetic evaluation of the Iberian lynx ex situ conservation programme. Heredity 123, 647–661 (2019).
Google Scholar
Lan, T. et al. Revealing extensive inbreeding and less efficient purging of deleterious mutations in wild Amur tigers in China. J. Genet. Genomics 52, 641–649 (2025).
Google Scholar
Zarri, L. J., Palkovacs, E. P., Post, D. M., Therkildsen, N. O. & Flecker, A. S. The evolutionary consequences of dams and other barriers for riverine fishes. BioScience 72, 431–448 (2022).
Google Scholar
Halford, G. et al. Genomic monitoring of a reintroduced butterfly uncovers contrasting founder lineage survival. Evol. Appl. 18, e70074 (2025).
Google Scholar
Ritchie, A. L. & Krauss, S. L. A genetic assessment of ecological restoration success in Banksia attenuata. Restor. Ecol. 20, 441–449 (2012).
Google Scholar
Leigh, D. M. et al. Opportunities and challenges of macrogenetic studies. Nat. Rev. Genet. 22, 791–807 (2021).
Google Scholar
Hoban, S. et al. Too simple, too complex, or just right? Advantages, challenges, and guidance for indicators of genetic diversity. BioScience 74, 269–280 (2024).
Google Scholar
Mastretta-Yanes, A. et al. Multinational evaluation of genetic diversity indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Ecol. Lett. 27, e14461 (2024).
Google Scholar
Miller, B. P. et al. A framework for the practical science necessary to restore sustainable, resilient, and biodiverse ecosystems. Restor. Ecol. 25, 605–617 (2017).
Google Scholar
Waples, R. S. The idiot’s guide to effective population size. Mol. Ecol. 34, e17670 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wright, S. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159 (1931).
Google Scholar
Frankham, R. Effective population size/adult population size ratios in wildlife: a review. Genet. Res. 66, 95–107 (1995).
Google Scholar
Mergeay, J. et al. Estimating the effective size of European wolf populations. Evol. Appl. 17, e70021 (2024).
Google Scholar
Ardren, W. R. & Kapuscinski, A. R. Demographic and genetic estimates of effective population size (Ne) reveals genetic compensation in steelhead trout. Mol. Ecol. 12, 35–49 (2003).
Google Scholar
Schuman, M. C. et al., Monitor indicators of genetic diversity from space using Earth observation data. Preprint at EcoEvoRxiv https://doi.org/10.32942/X2ZP53 (2023).
Güntsch, A. et al. National biodiversity data infrastructures: ten essential functions for science, policy, and practice. BioScience 75, 139–151 (2025).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, C. T. et al. Three frontiers for the future of biodiversity research using citizen science data. BioScience 71, 55–63 (2020).
Rayne, A. et al. Weaving place-based knowledge for culturally significant species in the age of genomics: looking to the past to navigate the future. Evol. Appl. 15, 751–772 (2022).
Google Scholar
Lalueza-Fox, C. Museomics. Curr. Biol. 32, R1214–R1215 (2022).
Google Scholar
Card, D. C., Shapiro, B., Giribet, G., Moritz, C. & Edwards, S. V. Museum genomics. Annu. Rev. Genet. 55, 633–659 (2021).
Google Scholar
Clark, R. D. et al. The practice and promise of temporal genomics for measuring evolutionary responses to global change. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 25, e13789 (2025).
Google Scholar
Jackson, H. A. et al. Genomic erosion in a demographically recovered bird species during conservation rescue. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13918 (2022).
Google Scholar
Frankham, R. Suggested improvements to proposed genetic indicator for CBD. Conserv. Genet. 22, 531–532 (2021).
Google Scholar
Koricheva, J., Gurevitch, J. & Mengersen, K. Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution (Princeton Univ. Press, 2013).
Senior, A. M. et al. Heterogeneity in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses: its magnitude and implications. Ecology 97, 3293–3299 (2016).
Google Scholar
Noble, D. W. A., Lagisz, M., O’Dea, R. E. & Nakagawa, S. Nonindependence and sensitivity analyses in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Mol. Ecol. 26, 2410–2425 (2017).
Google Scholar
Lewis, S. & Clarke, M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 322, 1479–1480 (2001).
Google Scholar
Nakagawa, S. et al. Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13, 4–21 (2022).
Google Scholar
Caldwell, I. R. et al. Global trends and biases in biodiversity conservation research. Cell Rep. Sustain. 1, 100082 (2024).
Paz‐Vinas, I. et al. Sparse genetic data limit biodiversity assessments in protected areas globally. Front. Ecol. Environ. 23, e2867 (2025).
Google Scholar
dos Santos, J. W. et al. Drivers of taxonomic bias in conservation research: a global analysis of terrestrial mammals. Anim. Conserv. 23, 679–688 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hickisch, R. et al. Effects of publication bias on conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1151–1163 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sayers, E. W. et al. GenBank 2025 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 53, D56–D61 (2024).
Google Scholar
Blanchet, S., Prunier, J. G. & De Kort, H. Time to go bigger: emerging patterns in macrogenetics. Trends Genet. 33, 579–580 (2017).
Google Scholar
Leigh, D. M. et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1224–1232 (2024).
Forsdick, N. J. et al. Journeying towards best practice data management in biodiversity genomics. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 25, e13880 (2025).
Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Google Scholar
Romiguier, J. et al. Comparative population genomics in animals uncovers the determinants of genetic diversity. Nature 515, 261–263 (2014).
Google Scholar
Schmidt, C., Hoban, S. & Jetz, W. Conservation macrogenetics: harnessing genetic data to meet conservation commitments. Trends Genet. 39, 816–829 (2023).
Google Scholar
Chichorro, F. et al. Trait-based prediction of extinction risk across terrestrial taxa. Biol. Conserv. 274, 109738 (2022).
Google Scholar
Karachaliou, E., Schmidt, C., de Greef, E., Docker, M. F. & Garroway, C. J. Urbanisation is associated with reduced genetic diversity in marine fish populations. Mol. Ecol. 34, e17711 (2025).
Google Scholar
Baranzelli, M. C., Cosacov, A., Sede, S. M., Nicola, M. V. & Sérsic, A. N. Anthropocene refugia in Patagonia: a macrogenetic approach to safeguarding the biodiversity of flowering plants. Biol. Conserv. 268, 109492 (2022).
Google Scholar
Stevenson, S. L. et al. Matching biodiversity indicators to policy needs. Conserv. Biol. 35, 522–532 (2021).
Google Scholar
Affinito, F., Williams, J. M., Campbell, J. E., Londono, M. C. & Gonzalez, A. Progress in developing and operationalizing the Monitoring Framework of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 2163–2171 (2024).
Google Scholar
Green, E. J. et al. Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1360–1369 (2019).
Google Scholar
Khoury, C. K. et al. Comprehensiveness of conservation of useful wild plants: an operational indicator for biodiversity and sustainable development targets. Ecol. Indic. 98, 420–429 (2019).
Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 15/5 monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-05-en.pdf (2022).
Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 15/4 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf (2022).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2019).
IPBES Secretariat. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2019).
CITES. Seventy-seventh meeting of the Standing Committee, CITES Strategic Vision. CITES https://cites.org/sites/default/files/documents/SC/77/agenda/E-SC77-16.pdf (2023).
da Silva, J. M. et al. Conserving genetic and genomic diversity in accordance with the Global Biodiversity Framework. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 14, 399–428 (2025).
Google Scholar
International Union for Conservation of Nature. Global Species Action Plan: Supporting Implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (IUCN, 2023).
McLaughlin, C. M., Hinshaw, C., Sandoval-Arango, S., Zavala-Paez, M. & Hamilton, J. A. Redlisting genetics: towards inclusion of genetic data in IUCN Red List assessments. Conserv. Genet. 26, 213–223 (2025).
Google Scholar
Convention on Biological Diversity. On-line reporting tool for NBSAPs and national reports. CBD https://ort.cbd.int/knowledge-base (2025).
Hoban, S. et al. How can biodiversity strategy and action plans incorporate genetic diversity and align with global commitments? BioScience 75, 47–60 (2025).
Google Scholar
Pierson, J. C. et al. Genetic factors in threatened species recovery plans on three continents. Front. Ecol. Env. 14, 433–440 (2016).
Google Scholar
Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Division. Aquaculture Development 3. Genetic Resource Management: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 2008).
Shapiro, B. I. et al. Ethiopia Livestock Master Plan: Roadmaps for Growth and Transformation. A Contribution to the Growth and Transformation Plan II (2015-2020) (International Livestock Research Institute, 2015).
Bell-James, J. & Watson, J. E. M. Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 9, 417–424 (2025).
Google Scholar
Pearman, P. B. et al. Monitoring of species’ genetic diversity in Europe varies greatly and overlooks potential climate change impacts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 267–281 (2024).
Google Scholar
Hollingsworth, P. M. et al. Scotland’s Biodiversity Progress to 2020 Aichi Targets: Aichi Target 13 – Genetic Diversity Maintained – Supplementary Report 2020 (Scottish Natural Heritage, 2020).
Fischer, M. C. et al. Pilotstudie für ein Monitoring der genetischen Vielfalt in der Schweiz. ETH Zurich Institute of Integrative Biology, https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/661655 (2023).
Willi, Y. et al. Conservation genetics as a management tool: the five best-supported paradigms to assist the management of threatened species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2105076119 (2021).
Google Scholar
Waples, R. S. Definition of ‘species’ under the Endangered Species Act: application to Pacific salmon. noaa.gov https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/48852 (1991).
Wild Salmon Center. In California, a big step forward for spring Chinook. wildsalmoncenter.org https://wildsalmoncenter.org/2021/06/24/in-california-a-big-step-forward-for-spring-chinook/ (2015).
Shaffer, H. B. et al. Landscape genomics to enable conservation actions: the California conservation genomics project. J. Hered. 113, 577–588 (2022).
Google Scholar
Bradby, K., Keesing, A. & Wardell-Johnson, G. Gondwana link: connecting people, landscapes, and livelihoods across southwestern Australia. Restor. Ecol. 24, 827–835 (2016).
Google Scholar
Cristina Carrillo Hernández, A., Ortega-Argueta, A., María Gama Campillo, L., Bello-Baltazar, E. & Rioja Nieto, R. Effectiveness of management of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in Mexico. Landsc. Urban Plan. 226, 104504 (2022).
Google Scholar
Aryal, A. et al. Biological diversity and management regimes of the Northern Barandabhar Forest Corridor: an essential habitat for ecological connectivity in Nepal. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5, 38–49 (2012).
Google Scholar
Hilty, J. A., Chester, C. C., Wright, P. A. & Zenkewich, K., Uniting hearts and lands: advancing conservation and restoration across the Yellowstone to Yukon region. Front. Conserv. Sci. 4, 1264460 (2024).
Google Scholar
Millar, M. A. et al. Evaluating restoration outcomes through assessment of pollen dispersal, mating system, and genetic diversity. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13335 (2021).
Google Scholar
Krauss, S. L. & Anthony, J. M. The potential impact of mining on population genetic variation in the Banded Ironstone Formation endemic Tetratheca erubescens (Elaeocarpaceae). Aust. J. Bot. 67, 172–182 (2019).
Google Scholar
Elliott, C. P., Tomlinson, S., Lewandrowski, W. & Miller, B. P. Species distribution and habitat attributes guide translocation planning of a threatened short-range endemic plant. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 51, e02915 (2024).
Jahner, J. P. et al. The genetic legacy of 50 years of desert bighorn sheep translocations. Evol. Appl. 12, 198–213 (2019).
Google Scholar
Rick, K. et al. Population genomic diversity and structure in the golden bandicoot: a history of isolation, extirpation, and conservation. Heredity 131, 374–386 (2023).
Google Scholar
Colding, J., Giusti, M., Haga, A., Wallhagen, M. & Barthel, S. Enabling relationships with nature in cities. Sustainability 12, 4394 (2020).
Google Scholar
Noreen, A. M. E., Niissalo, M. A., Lum, S. K. Y. & Webb, E. L. Persistence of long-distance, insect-mediated pollen movement for a tropical canopy tree species in remnant forest patches in an urban landscape. Heredity 117, 472–480 (2016).
Google Scholar
Finnerty, P. B. et al. Urban rewilding to combat global biodiversity decline. BioScience 75, 545–558 (2025).
Google Scholar
O’Garra, T., Kuz, V., Deneault, A., Orr, C. & Chan, S. Early engagement and co-benefits strengthen cities’ climate commitments. Nat. Cities 1, 315–324 (2024).
Google Scholar
UN-HABITAT. Supporting local action for biodiversity: the role of national governments. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). unhabitat.org https://unhabitat.org/supporting-local-action-for-biodiversity (2010).
Thomas, I. G. Environmental policy and local government in Australia. Local Environ. 15, 121–136 (2010).
Google Scholar
Daniel, P., Doak, D. F. & Steinberg, P. The role of local government in the conservation of rare species. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1538–1548 (1996).
Google Scholar
Pärli, R. et al. Developing a monitoring program of genetic diversity: what do stakeholders say? Conserv. Genet. 22, 673–684 (2021).
Google Scholar
Elliot, V., Jonäll, K., Paananen, M., Bebbington, J. & Michelon, G. Biodiversity reporting: standardization, materiality, and assurance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 68, 101435 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rainey, H. J. et al. A review of corporate goals of no net loss and net positive impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49, 232–238 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sonter, L. J., Ali, S. H. & Watson, J. E. M. Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science. Proc. Biol. Sci. 285, 20181926 (2018).
Chandler, M. et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 213, 280–294 (2017).
Google Scholar
Buckley, S. J. et al. A community-driven captive-breeding and reintroduction program maintains genetic diversity in a threatened freshwater fish. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 6, e13054 (2024).
Google Scholar
Tyagi, A., Godbole, M., Vanak, A. T. & Ramakrishnan, U. Citizen science facilitates first ever genetic detection of wolf-dog hybridization in Indian savannahs. Ecol. Evol. 13, e10100 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hawkins, C., Baars, C., Hesterman, H., Hocking, G. & Jones, M. Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biol. Conserv. 131, 307–324 (2006).
Google Scholar
Priddel, D., Carlile, N., Humphrey, M., Fellenberg, S. & Hiscox, D. Rediscovery of the ‘extinct’ Lord Howe Island stick-insect (Dryococelus australis (Montrouzier)) (Phasmatodea) and recommendations for its conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 12, 1391–1403 (2003).
Google Scholar
Peter, M., Diekötter, T., Höffler, T. & Kremer, K. Biodiversity citizen science: outcomes for the participating citizens. Peopl. Nat. 3, 294–311 (2021).
Google Scholar
Czyż, E. A. et al. Intraspecific genetic variation of a Fagus sylvatica population in a temperate forest derived from airborne imaging spectroscopy time series. Ecol. Evol. 10, 7419–7430 (2020).
Google Scholar
Mc Cartney, A. M. et al. Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity. npj Biodivers. 2, 8 (2023).
Google Scholar
Hogg, C. J. Translating genomic advances into biodiversity conservation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 25, 362–373 (2024).
Google Scholar
Griffith, J. et al. BON in a box: an open and collaborative platform for biodiversity monitoring, indicator calculation, and reporting. BioScience 76, 345–358 (2026).
Google Scholar
Mastretta-Yanes, A. et al. Guideline materials and documentation for the genetic diversity indicators of the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Biodivers. Inform. 18, 24–27 (2024).
Google Scholar
Wright, S. The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs III: crosses between highly inbred families. Bull. US Dept. Agric. 1121, 1–60 (1922).
Fisher, R. A. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Oxford Univ. Press, 1930).
Fedorca, A. et al. Dealing with the complexity of effective population size in conservation practice. Evol. Appl. 17, e70031 (2024).
Google Scholar
Kirin, M. et al. Genomic runs of homozygosity record population history and consanguinity. PLoS ONE 5, e13996 (2010).
Google Scholar
Grossen, C., Guillaume, F., Keller, L. F. & Croll, D. Purging of highly deleterious mutations through severe bottlenecks in Alpine ibex. Nat. Commun. 11, 1001 (2020).
Google Scholar
Ebenezer, T. E. et al. Africa: sequence 100,000 species to safeguard biodiversity. Nature 603, 388–392 (2022).
Google Scholar
Vilaça, S. T. et al. Leveraging genomes to support conservation and bioeconomy policies in a megadiverse country. Cell Genom. 4, 100678 (2024).
Google Scholar
Lawson, L. P. et al. Slow motion extinction: inbreeding, introgression, and loss in the critically endangered mangrove finch (Camarhynchus heliobates). Conserv. Genet. 18, 159–170 (2017).
Google Scholar
Zarza, E., Reynoso, V. H., Faria, C. M. A. & Emerson, B. C. Introgressive hybridization in a spiny-tailed iguana, Ctenosaura pectinata, and its implications for taxonomy and conservation. PeerJ 7, e6744 (2019).
Google Scholar
Thomas, N. E., Chadwick, E. A., Bruford, M. W. & Hailer, F. Spatio-temporal changes in effective population size in an expanding metapopulation of Eurasian otters. Evol. Appl. 18, e70067 (2025).
Google Scholar
Pickup, M. & Young, A. G. Population size, self-incompatibility and genetic rescue in diploid and tetraploid races of Rutidosis leptorrhynchoides (Asteraceae). Heredity 100, 268–274 (2008).
Google Scholar
Stuart, O. P., Cleave, R., Pearce, K., Magrath, M. J. L. & Mikheyev, A. S. Gene flow stimulates recovery of reproductive fitness in a captive bred insect. Insect Conserv. Divers. 18, 743–756 (2024).
Google Scholar
Stuart, O. P., Cleave, R., Pearce, K., Magrath, M. J. L. & Mikheyev, A. S. Purging of highly deleterious mutations through an extreme bottleneck. Mol. Biol. Evol. 42, msaf079 (2025).
Google Scholar
Lundmark, C., Sandström, A., Andersson, K. & Laikre, L. Monitoring the effects of knowledge communication on conservation managers’ perception of genetic biodiversity – a case study from the Baltic Sea. Mar. Policy 99, 223–229 (2019).
Google Scholar
Buck, M. & Hamilton, C. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the convention on biological diversity. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 20, 47–61 (2011).
Google Scholar
Carroll, S. R. et al. The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Sci. J. 19, 43 (2020).
Google Scholar
Te Aika, B. et al. Aotearoa genomic data repository: an āhuru mōwai for taonga species sequencing data. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 25, e13866 (2025).
Google Scholar
Dawson, N. M. et al. The role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in effective and equitable conservation. Ecol. Soc. 26, 19 (2021).
Google Scholar
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed substantially to discussion of the content and contributed to drafting sections of the manuscript. R.E.S., C.P.E., D.J.C., K.M.O. and C.E.G. led the development of display items with feedback from all other authors. R.E.S. and C.E.G. led the compilation of the final draft. All authors reviewed the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Reviews Biodiversity thanks Paul Hohenlohe, Kathrin Theissingerand and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shaw, R.E., Elliott, C.P., Coates, D.J. et al. Halting genetic diversity loss, from local to international action and policy.
Nat. Rev. Biodivers. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-026-00162-0
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44358-026-00162-0
Source: Ecology - nature.com
