Genetic diversity is essential to the ability of species to adapt and survive, providing the raw material for evolution and ensuring resilience in the face of environmental change. To recognise the importance of this core component of biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework - adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at COP15 in Montreal in December 2022 - includes two dedicated indicators of genetic diversity. Although relevant data and indicators already exist, they are still rarely incorporated into species management and monitoring programmes in Europe, largely due to limited capacity. Nevertheless, numerous initiatives and projects are now working to refine, evaluate, and promote the use of genetic diversity data and indicators for biodiversity reporting, helping to bridge the divide between scientific advances and practical application. One such initiative is GENOA (Genetic Nature Observation and Action), a European COST Action designed to support the practical implementation of genetic diversity monitoring and its integration into European conservation policy and practice. To achieve this, GENOA will: 1. foster a broader understanding of how to implement and apply genetic diversity assessments across policy and management contexts in Europe, 2. co-create and refine procedures, methodologies, and datasets for assessing genetic diversity, including the development and testing of improved indicators and 3. develop dissemination packages to effectively engage, inform, and consult with targeted stakeholders. This work will be carried out across five dedicated working groups (WGs): WG1 will focus on policy, WG2 on genetic indicators, WG3 on linking genes to ecosystems, WG4 on engagement and capacity building, and WG5 on communication and collaboration. Importantly, the initiative will involve a broad range of biodiversity actors, including practitioners, businesses, policymakers, researchers, and the public, ensuring that diverse perspectives and needs inform its outputs. By bringing together this wide community and strengthening the practical use of genetic data, GENOA will contribute to more effective, inclusive, and forward-looking biodiversity conservation across Europe.
How to cite: Russo, I.-R., Buzan, E., Galbusera, P., Gargiulo, R., Heuertz, M., Hoban, S., Hvilsom, C., Kalamujić Stroil, B., Kopatz, A., Laikre, L., Mergeay, J., Paz-Vinas, I., Segelbacher, G., Vernesi, C., Fedorca, A., and Action, G. C.: Integrating genetic diversity monitoring in Europe: The GENOA COST Action, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-932, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-932, 2026.
The conservation of biodiversity ultimately depends on the conservation of its cornerstone, genetic diversity. The central dogma of conservation genetics postulates that genetic variability is beneficial, hence worth preserving to the greatest extent, while the increase of genetic variance enhances the probability of population survival. The genetic indicators proposed by the Post-2020 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework need complementary approaches for a full assessment of adaptive potential. Comprehensive genetic monitoring assesses the state of the maintenance of genetic variation in natural populations and the success of gene conservation actions. Genetic monitoring, the quantification of temporal changes in population genetic variation and structure, elucidates processes that maintain genetic variation and adaptive potential in natural populations, introduces prognosis and helps define tools for the management of genetic resources. Herein, we present genetic monitoring results focusing on south-eastern marginal populations of three perennial woody angiosperms and two conifers, namely chestnut (Castanea sativa), sessile oak (Quercus petraea), pedunculate oak (Quercus robur), as well as hybrid fir (Abies borisii regis) and umbrella pine (Pinus pinea), that are expected to face particular challenges in the future due to climatic change and anticipated changes in their future climatic envelop. These species have been evaluated in a time interval of 15-17 years (baseline and contemporary genetic data). The genetic diversity parameters employed for genetic monitoring were effective number of alleles (Ae), allelic richness (AR), Shannon’s information index (I), observed heterozygosity (Ho), gene diversity (Hs), latent genetic potential (LGP), and effective population size (Ne), In the majority of comparisons, extant genetic diversity was found reduced, however the differences were not statistically significant. In the genetically depauperate Pinus pinea the already very low genetic diversity did not recover. Moreover, fructification and natural regeneration were strong and abundant respectively in the former four species, while being weak and scattered in the latter. Results overall depict dynamic and idiosyncratic species outcomes and call for the maintenance and intensification of genetic monitoring assessments in the future.
How to cite: Aravanopoulos, F., Lyrou, F., Tourvas, N., Arvanitidou, M., and Kotina, V.-M.: Implementing genetic indicator metrics in a monitoring study of five woody perennial angiosperms and conifers, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-799, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-799, 2026.
Biodiversity indicators need to be reliable if they are to shape policy, conservation, management, and ultimately the future of our planet. An indicator can be considered reliable if it detects and summarizes biodiversity trends accurately, precisely, and without bias. However, the performance of genetic diversity indicators has not yet been robustly quantified. Here, we address this gap by testing the performance of one of the KMGBF indicators for genetic diversity, the Headline Indicator A.4 “Proportion of populations with an effective size greater than 500 (Ne > 500)” using simulations and subsampled real data. We focus on the scenario in which census size, Nc, is used as a proxy for Ne (we only simulate demography, not DNA-based data).
We show that this indicator can be reliably measured under realistic population trends, monitoring intervals, and observer error. Performance is consistently high for both declining and increasing populations, and across different levels of national investment in population recovery. Our results suggest the following guidelines for KMGBF monitoring of this indicator: assess populations every 1–4 years, monitor at least 40–60% of populations per species, and include at least 8% of species when species pools contain several thousand taxa, increasing up to 56% when species pools contain fewer than 100 taxa.
These findings show that the Headline Indicator A.4 is feasible and technically reliable under realistic scenarios of biodiversity change and on-the-ground monitoring constraints. Beyond this individual indicator, we emphasize the need for performance testing of additional metrics to ensure trust in monitoring and reporting progress toward KMGBF targets and the goal of halting biodiversity loss. The model we present - using simulated and real data under realistic biodiversity trends, timelines, and logistical constraints (e.g., observation error, monitoring gaps) - provides a viable pathway to quantify indicator reliability and strengthen confidence of policymakers, conservationists, and businesses investing in biodiversity restoration.
How to cite: Hebert, K., Pollock, L., and Hoban, S.: What frequency and scale of monitoring is needed to reliably report on the Ne 500 indicator: a test using simulations , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-295, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-295, 2026.
Genetic diversity is considered essential for populations’ adaptive potential and long-term persistence, yet it has historically received less attention in conservation policy than species and ecosystem diversity. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) explicitly addresses the need to maintain genetic diversity in order to preserve the adaptive potential of populations. This calls for a systematic monitoring of genetic diversity in natural populations, raising a central question: to what extent can genetic data capture populations’ adaptive potential at scales relevant for conservation planning? Traditional genetic diversity metrics cannot directly quantify adaptive potential, and the required extensive phenotypic or fitness data for a quantitative genetic prediction of adaptive potential are rarely available for wild populations of conservation concern. Genomic approaches, such as genetic offsets, which estimate the genetic changes required for populations to remain adapted under projected future climatic conditions, offer a promising avenue to infer climate adaptation status using genome-wide data. Here, we evaluate the suitability of genetic offsets as an informative genetic variable for climate adaptation aligned with GBF objectives. Using Gradient Forest models applied to whole-genome re-sequencing data from five species included in Switzerland’s national pilot study for genetic diversity monitoring, we mapped spatial patterns of adaptive genetic composition and predicted genomic offsets under multiple climate change scenarios. To contextualize these predictions, we integrated them with landscape connectivity and analyses of recent gene-flow, to assess whether populations facing high offsets are isolated or well-connected. Our findings underscore both the potential and limitations of genetic offsets to contribute to GBF goals and targets. While offsets can provide valuable insights into expected temporal shifts in climate adaptation, they do not directly assess adaptive potential and are strongly influenced by species-specific traits and demographic histories. We therefore propose to combine genetic offsets with complementary metrics, such as landscape connectivity and gene-flow, to capture climate adaptation lag in a monitoring context, supporting GBF implementation at national and global scales.
How to cite: Reutimann, O., Widmer, A., and Fischer, M. C.: What can genetic diversity monitoring tell us about adaptive potential? Insights from a Swiss pilot study, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-519, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-519, 2026.
Achieving the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) goals and targets for genetic diversity depends on our capacity to assess and monitor the genetic health of species with precision, consistency, and scalability. Reference genomes - high-quality, chromosome-level assemblies generated for representative individuals of a species - are rapidly becoming foundational to this effort. Within the European Reference Genome Atlas (ERGA), research groups, infrastructures, and conservation actors are collaborating to generate such genomes across Europe’s biodiversity. These genomic resources are transforming the toolkit available for genetic monitoring and provide direct support for implementing CBD-aligned conservation actions.
Reference genomes underpin reliable genetic diversity indicators by greatly improving the accuracy of downstream analyses. Their use enables far finer resolution than traditional markers, allowing quantification of, among others, inbreeding, genetic diversity, and patterns of local adaptation. These metrics complement and reinforce the GBF Headline Indicator A.4., which assesses whether population sizes are large enough to maintain long-term adaptive potential. By anchoring population-level genomic data to a reference, demographic reconstructions become more robust, effective population size estimates gain precision, and early warning signals of genetic erosion can be detected before declines become visible through demographic or ecological trends.
Beyond supporting headline measures, reference genomes open the door to a suite of additional DNA-based indicators relevant to restoration success, connectivity planning, and climate change resilience. They facilitate the meaningful integration of environmental DNA, museum genomics, and Earth Observation data, providing scalable approaches for biodiversity surveillance across landscapes and taxa. ERGA’s coordinated standards for sampling, sequencing, analysis, and data stewardship aim to ensure that these resources are interoperable and accessible to national monitoring programmes.
As countries develop and refine strategies to meet GBF targets, reference genomes offer a future-proof and affordable investment: one genome enables decades of genetic monitoring and can be re-analysed as tools and indicators advance. By presenting current progress and case studies from ERGA, this presentation will highlight how reference genomes are becoming a practical and powerful component of conservation decision-making - helping nations monitor, restore, and secure genetic diversity for the long term.
How to cite: de Guttry, C., Bortoluzzi, C., and Waterhouse, R.: Reference genomes: practical and powerful resources transforming the toolkit for genetic monitoring, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-785, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-785, 2026.
The EU Biodiversa+ GINAMO (Genetic Indicator for Nature Monitoring) project supports the implementation and use of the CBD KMGBF Target 4 genetic indicators by five European countries (Belgium, Sweden, France, Italy, and Norway). A key feature of this international project is its use of an inclusive co-creation approach, engaging stakeholders from the outset to develop solutions that reflect their needs, resources, and practical contexts—thereby increasing the likelihood of successful uptake and long-term use.
To better understand the practical challenges associated with calculating and reporting the CBD KMGBF headline genetic indicator Ne > 500 and the complementary indicator PM (proportion of populations maintained), we conducted stakeholder inclusive workshops in each partner country to identify priority gaps and needs. Some of these challenges were then translated into formal research questions, while others were addressed directly through iterative co-creation involving the relevant stakeholders.
We also assessed stakeholder perceptions of the process and will present the insights and results gained so far. For stakeholders, participation can be difficult due to limited time, even when interest is high. By taking a broad view of who the stakeholders are in each country, the workshops created a space where people who do not normally meet could come together to articulate practical and relevant needs. Participants found this highly valuable. The facilitated structure was appreciated and seen as a key reason for the engaged discussions, and the concrete outcomes of the meetings made them more useful to stakeholders than similar, non-facilitated meetings.
For the project researchers, the co-creation process was experienced as both valuable and enriching, though not without its challenges. While frequently celebrated as a transformative tool for enhancing research relevance and societal impact, co-creation requires a skillset that extends beyond traditional scientific training. Effective facilitation, communication, and iterative engagement - activities that require time, budget, and emotional investment are not always accounted for in project planning and design.
The emerging lessons from GINAMO’s co-creation process offer a foundation for strengthening future collaborations at the interface between science, management, and policy and serve as inspiration for other initiatives embarking on co-creation with stakeholders.
How to cite: Ritzl Vejlgaard, C., Geue, J., Theunissen, E., Lundmark, C., Leus, K., and Hvilsom, C.: Co-Creation for Genetic Indicator Monitoring and Reporting: Windfalls and Pitfalls, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-658, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-658, 2026.
Genetic diversity underpins all biodiversity but has long been overlooked in policy and practice. A major step was taken at COP15 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, where Goal A, Target 4, and dedicated indicators for genetic diversity were adopted. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework explicitly states that sufficient genetic diversity must be maintained to secure the adaptive potential of populations within species, both wild and domesticated. Its monitoring framework includes headline indicator A.4: the proportion of populations within species with an effective population size Ne > 500 (Ne500) and complementary indicator A.CY.22, the proportion of populations maintained (PM). Parties are expected to report on these indicators from 2026. Our project supports European countries in initiating assessments and preparing for reporting. Within the EU COST Action GENOA and linked to the Biodiversa+ project GINAMO, we build on previous work (Mastretta-Yanes & da Silva et al., 2024) that assessed Ne500 and PM in nine countries, including Belgium, France, and Sweden. We now present improved assessment tools and results from over twelve additional European countries, covering continental Europe, Fennoscandia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. A key challenge addressed here is assessing species with transboundary distributions and reporting indicator values at the EU level. We also describe collaborative interactions with CBD National Focal Points in the focal countries. Our results reveal substantial variation in uptake of genetic monitoring approaches across Europe. Based on this, we propose a roadmap to improve assessment and reporting of genetic diversity indicators at both national and EU scales. We also discuss extending these approaches to domesticated species, with examples from Belgium and Sweden. Take-home contributions include: 1) Demonstrating a practical pan-European approach to GBF genetic diversity indicator implementation; 2) Providing a replicable methodology and assessment tools ready for national reporting in 2026; 3) Highlighting challenges and proposing solutions for transboundary populations and EU-level reporting, facilitating harmonised reporting across countries; 4) Offering a roadmap to integrate domesticated species in national genetic diversity reporting, extending GBF applicability.
How to cite: Laikre, L. and the 20 coauthors: Implementing the indicators for genetic diversity of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework across Europe, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-667, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-667, 2026.
Signing the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), most countries on Earth committed to protect the genetic diversity of wild species and safeguard their adaptive potential. Since effective protection requires efficient monitoring, there is an urgent need for tools that can establish a geographic baseline of genetic diversity and track its changes over time. This monitoring task is particularly challenging in ocean ecosystems, where field-based DNA sampling is logistically complex. Coral reefs exemplify this challenge: they are the most biodiverse ecosystems in our oceans and are undergoing rapid decline due to global change, yet the status and trends of their genetic diversity remain largely unknown.
We compiled genome-wide DNA data for 2,520 individuals from 18 reef taxa—including corals, fish, sharks, oysters, shrimp, anemones, and manta rays––and assessed spatiotemporal patterns of genetic diversity across 173 reefs worldwide between 1998-2018. While we did not observe an overall temporal decline in genetic diversity, within-reef diversity showed negative trends, potentially reflecting population-level loss. In addition, we identified regions in the Indian Ocean and the Caribbean where genetic diversity appeared systematically lower than the global average.
We finally used hundreds of seascape variables to interpret these geographic patterns of genetic diversity across reefs globally. Key predictors included declining oxygen levels, increasing nitrate concentrations, and rising water temperatures—variables that can be tracked in real time via Earth Observation (EO), enabling early warning for coral reef genetic diversity loss.
Integrating DNA and EO data can provide detailed information on the status of genetic diversity in our oceans, and future work should focus on how to integrate these data within the GBF.
How to cite: Selmoni, O. and Schuman, M. C.: Spatiotemporal patterns of genetic diversity in the world’s coral reefs, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-466, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-466, 2026.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is a milestone because, for the first time, conservation goals come with a clear monitoring system and —also for the first time— incorporate the genetic level. Yet with 23 Targets, 26 headline indicators and more than 300 optional indicators, monitoring burden represents a concern for practitioners. Many indicators share similar raw data or are part of established processes and therefore could, and should, result in more streamlined reporting efforts. However, in practice this potential benefit rarely materialises due to disconnected approaches.
This disconnect is exemplified in Target 4: “Halt Species Extinction, Protect Genetic Diversity, and Manage Human-Wildlife Conflicts”, monitored by the headline indicators “A.3 Red list Index”, and “A.4 The proportion of populations within species with an effective population size (Ne) > 500” (“Ne 500” indicator). Providing different but complementary conservation messages, the Red List Index measures extinction risk at the species level, and the Ne 500 indicator measures whether populations within species can maintain their genetic diversity.
Both Red List assessment and generation of the Ne 500 indicator (in the absence of genetic data) incorporate population data derived from similar but varied information sources, ranging from scientific papers to the expertise of local knowledge holders. Since Red List assessment is an ongoing, well-established global practice, leveraging the data aggregated through the Red List workflow to generate genetic diversity indicators (GDI), as well as the Red List Index, could not only make monitoring more efficient, but ensure that genetic diversity is no longer overlooked.
Here, we demonstrate that since both indicators share population data requirements, indicator generation can be built into existing workflows for Red List assessment, even when considering examples for taxa where population data are often challenging to compile. We suggest a complementary approach to Red List assessment and GDI estimation is possible, straightforward, and offers an excellent opportunity to consolidate reporting against Target 4 of the GBF, improving monitoring and generating novel conservation insights. However, a complementary approach is most practical and encouraged when undertaking global Red List assessment of country endemic species and/or when engaging in national Red List assessment initiatives.
How to cite: Khorngton, S., Bevan, H., Prajaksood, A., Triboun, P., Barker, A., Peach, J., Bachman, S., Plummer, J., and Mastretta-Yanes, A.: Leveraging Red List data to estimate genetic diversity indicators: improved workflows to support the GBF, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-773, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-773, 2026.
Safeguarding genetic diversity is a key objective of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. How to assess genetic diversity indicators in a way that supports reliable and efficient long-term monitoring remains an open challenge, as existing approaches often depend on manual species selection and expert judgment. Here, we present an automated, data-driven approach to infer the two genetic diversity indicators under Headline Indicator A.4 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): the proportion of populations with effective population size (Ne) over 500 (Ne500) and the proportion of populations maintained (PM) across species. Our approach integrates national species occurrence records for the PM indicator and species density estimates from long-term national species and habitat monitoring programs for the Ne500 indicator. Species are selected using a rarefaction-based assessment of data quantity and spatial distribution, and populations are inferred using a spatial clustering approach. To assess the Ne500 indicator, we estimate suitable area for each population from land-cover data and census population size (Nc) by applying species-specific density estimates. Ne is then inferred using taxon-specific Ne/Nc ratios. The PM indicator is assessed by comparing the spatial distribution of contemporary populations with historical data to estimate population losses over time. We applied our newly developed approach to Swiss biodiversity data to test its feasibility and scalability for national proxy-based genetic diversity indicator assessment. Of 23,274 species with occurrence data, 3,154 (13.5%) had sufficient data to assess PM. We estimated PM to be 0.6 relative to the period before 2000. Ne500 was assessed for 1,123 species, with an estimate of 0.8 for the period 2011–2020. We further compared our proxy-based indicators with DNA-based indicators for five species (Dianthus carthusianorum, Emberiza citrinella, Epidalea calamita, Eriophorum vaginatum, Melitaea diamina) from whole-genome sequencing data. DNA-based Ne and Ne500 indicator values differed substantially from proxy-based estimates and provided more refined insights into Ne changes over the past century than proxy-based ones. In contrast, the proxy-based approach enabled rapid, affordable, broad-scale assessment of genetic indicators. We advocate combining DNA- and proxy-based genetic diversity assessments for effective monitoring to safeguard ecosystem resilience and species’ adaptive potential.
How to cite: Tschan, J. N., Fischer, M. C., and Widmer, A.: A data-driven approach for the assessment of proxy-based genetic diversity indicators, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-256, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-256, 2026.
Population genetic diversity (GD) is essential for long-term adaptation of wild species to changing environments. Humans have eroded ~10% of global GD, a silent crisis undermining food security, health and climate resilience. Effective population size Ne is a genetic parameter crucial for monitoring GD, understanding evolutionary processes and designing conservation strategies as it impacts the rate of random genetic drift, inbreeding, and adaptive potential. The “proportion of populations within species with Ne above 500” (Ne500) is an indicator endorsed by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that can be calculated from DNA-based or proxy data. Our aims are (1) to develop best practices for estimating Ne when genetic data is available, and (2) to operationalize this indicator via FAIR workflows to facilitate its reporting to the CBD.
We intend to improve the estimation of Ne by accounting for life-history traits (LHT) such as longevity and reproductive strategies. We implemented an existing LHT-based categorization framework based on demographic matrices across a wide range of taxa. This allowed us to select DNA datasets from a subset of 18 European species across the main categories of the LHT framework, thus covering a large range of evolutionary histories and biological characteristics.
We estimated genetic Ne and other population genetic metrics for 195 populations across the 18 species, and explored their variation across the LHT framework. We observed a large variation of Ne estimates across LHT categories, including populations with Ne below and above 500. We showed a negative relationship between Ne and population-specific divergence across a large proportion of LHT categories. We discuss situations where genetic or genomic data offer clear advantages over proxy data for reporting the Ne500 indicator, and we highlight the practical challenges of reliably estimating Ne in natural populations, particularly when spatial and age structures interact.
We are currently implementing operational workflows for end-users to compute Ne500 from a representative set of populations on the Galaxy-Ecology platform. These workflows infer genetic clusters to help with delimiting populations and control the effect of genomic data quality on Ne estimates.
How to cite: Harribey, M.-G., Martinez Anton, L., Mergeay, J., Westram, A., Cai, X., Gueue, J., Raspail, F., Galbusera, P., Hoban, S., Kopatz, A., Laikre, L., Segelbacher, G., Vernesi, C., Hvilsom, C., Le Bras, Y., Raeymaekers, J., Heuertz, M., and Garnier-Géré, P.: The Ne500 genetic indicator in species with diverse life history strategies: best estimation practices from DNA data and operationalisation, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-441, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-441, 2026.
Genetic diversity is a fundamental component of biodiversity and underpins the adaptive potential of species and ecosystems. Despite its recognized importance, explicit protection of genetic diversity of all species has only recently been incorporated into global conservation commitments through the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD KMGBF), notably in Goal A and Target 4. The recently accepted genetic indicators by the CBD KMGBF, such as effective population size (Ne500) and the proportion of populations maintained over a specific time period (PM), offer ways to quantify genetic variation at large scales and inform policy. This study provides the first continental-scale assessment of genetic indicators for European birds. Our study lies within an important policy context: together with the Habitats Directive, the EU Birds Directive forms the foundation of EU nature conservation policy, protecting all wild bird species and their habitats, with Annex I listing those that require special conservation measures.
Using abundance data and census data from the European Breeding Bird Atlas (EBBA) and the European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), we delimited populations for species listed within Annex I and calculated both indicators. We then tested for correlations between the indicators and migratory strategy, habitat type, range size, and IUCN Red List status. We found that, while a default Ne/Nc ratio of 0,1 is often used, empirical data suggest higher but uncertain values, with clear habitat-related patterns. Species-specific differences emphasize the need for broader genetic studies to refine taxon-specific Ne/Nc estimates.
Finally, we concluded that data availability was sufficient for both indicators, though population delimitation and temporal alignment of datasets posed challenges and often required expert knowledge. The results highlight both the feasibility and current limitations of implementing genetic indicators for large, well-monitored taxa such as birds. This work provides guidelines for integrating genetic indicators into continental monitoring and for extending similar approaches to other taxonomic groups and regions.
How to cite: Mouton, C., Leenders, B., Hoban, S., Mergeay, J., Segelbacher, G., and Geue, J.: Evaluating Genetic Diversity Indicators for European Bird Species in the Context of Biodiversity Policy, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-168, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-168, 2026.
The conservation of genetic diversity in species forming wild–domesticated complexes requires robust indicators that account for their differentiated evolutionary histories. These complexes have been shaped by varying divergence times, spatial patterns, and human processes such as ongoing domestication in indigenous communities, traditional management practices, and intensive cultivation systems. For genetic indicators to be effective, it is essential to identify each component of the wild–domesticated continuum and ensure monitoring captures the evolutionary and biocultural dynamics maintaining diversity. This approach is critical not only for conserving wild areas but also for safeguarding cultural diversity and the stability of local and regional food systems. However, these components are often analysed in isolation, without integration into broader assessment frameworks or consideration of sociocultural factors. This study proposes explicitly incorporating wild–domesticated complexes into genetic diversity indicators to strengthen monitoring and ensure effective conservation outcomes.
We present an integrated analysis based on empirical data from wild–domesticated complexes within Mexico’s agrobiodiversity. Using examples from cotton, agaves, maize, chayotes, and their wild relatives, and employing genetic estimates of effective population size (Ne) alongside Ne derived from census size (Nc), we show that evaluating each component enhances the precision and reliability of decision-making at local and regional levels. Understanding species-specific threats is essential, as the traits that make these species valuable also render them vulnerable. For example, gene flow from cultivated plants can introduce domestication-selected traits into wild populations; rapid turnover of commercially attractive varieties can lead to the loss of multiple varieties and costly recovery processes; and intellectual property regulations may disrupt traditional seed management and the intra- and inter-varietal genetic diversity conserved in centers of origin, domestication, or within broader crop genetic diversity.
Integrating evolutionary and biocultural perspectives provides a framework for conserving the processes that generate and maintain genetic diversity. This approach contributes directly to safeguarding local agrobiodiversity, especially in regions where biocultural diversity is prominent, supports food sovereignty, promotes equitable futures, and ensures that diversity continues to provide adaptive potential across diverse environmental conditions, securing the capacity to nourish future generations.
How to cite: Wegier, A., Martínez-Velasco, I., Truchot-Taillefe, C., Alavez Gómez, V., Moreno Juarez, J. C., Oliva García, D., Gargiulo, R., and Mastretta-Yanes, A.: Future-Proofing Agrobiodiversity: Effective Population Size as a Tool to Conserve Wild–Domesticated Lineages, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-907, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-907, 2026.
