Blind Spots in KMGBF Implementation: Threatened Parasitic Plants Missing from DSI Evidence

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) Targets 4 and 13 place genetic diversity and Digital Sequence Information (DSI) benefit-sharing at the center of implementation. However, DSI-related datasets and indicators remain biased toward a narrow set of well-studied taxa; those are crops and model species. Parasitic plants exemplify this imbalance: abundant genomic resources are available for a few agronomic pests—Cuscuta, Striga, and Orobanche/Phelipanche spp.—yet most parasitic lineages are among the least represented angiosperm groups in public DSI and are absent from GBF implementation guidance and case studies. Closing DSI gaps for threatened parasitic plants is a recognition of the need for GBF implementation, not merely a research gap.

Threatened parasitic plants meet IUCN risk profiles driven by restricted ranges, fragmentation, and host dependence (Criterion B; Cytinus hypocistis, Orobanche pancicii, Sapria himalayana) and/or very small populations (Criterion D; Hydnora triceps, Rafflesia philippensis, Pilostyles thurberi), which are often assessed as endangered or critically endangered. Nonetheless, many parasitic taxa lack reference genomes, population genomic surveys, and openly accessible DSI, and some remain unevaluated on the IUCN Red List. This disparity undermines conservation assessment and genetic monitoring, obscuring cryptic diversity. It also hampers sequence-based identification in some parasites with highly reduced vegetative structures that are often distinguishable only from flowers. Broadly, conservation genomics remains underused for threatened plants. Moreover, parasite-focused sequencing, barcoding, and dedicated genomic initiatives are still limited.

As a way forward, we outline priority actions to align biodiversity conservation with responsible ABS-consistent open DSI for parasitic taxa: (i) minimally invasive sequencing of threatened parasites and host–symbiont networks, linked to validated vouchers; (ii) use of herbarium and historical material with provenance metadata to fill spatial and temporal gaps; and (iii) deposition of sequences in open repositories with transparent access conditions and ABS-relevant metadata, alongside targeted capacity building in biodiversity hotspots to support just and effective implementation.

In summary, we call for the GBF process to address genomic inequities as a practical implementation gap and to enable responsible, ABS-consistent open DSI for threatened parasitic plants, translating current blind spots into actionable knowledge for conservation and sustainable use.