4.7 Article

Taxonomic similarity does not predict necessary sample size for ex situ conservation: a comparison among five genera

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2020.0102

关键词

genetic diversity; botanic gardens; conservation planning; seed banks; ex situ conservation; trees

资金

  1. Institute of Museum and Library Services [MA-05-12-0336-12, MA-30-14-0123-14, MG-30-16-0085-16, MA-30-18-0273-18]
  2. National Science of Foundation [DEB 1050340, DBI 1203242, DBI 1561346]
  3. Plant Exploration Fund
  4. Association of Zoological Horticulture
  5. Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund [0925331, 12254271, 162512606]
  6. SOSSave Our Species [2012A-035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Effectively conserving biodiversity with limited resources requires scientifically informed and efficient strategies. Guidance is particularly needed on how many living plants are necessary to conserve a threshold level of genetic diversity in ex situ collections. We investigated this question for 11 taxa across five genera. In this first study analysing and optimizing ex situ genetic diversity across multiple genera, we found that the percentage of extant genetic diversity currently conserved varies among taxa from 40% to 95%. Most taxa are well below genetic conservation targets. Resampling datasets showed that ideal collection sizes vary widely even within a genus: one taxon typically required at least 50% more individuals than another (though Quercus was an exception). Still, across taxa, the minimum collection size to achieve genetic conservation goals is within one order of magnitude. Current collections are also suboptimal: they could remain the same size yet capture twice the genetic diversity with an improved sampling design. We term this deficiency the 'genetic conservation gap'. Lastly, we show that minimum collection sizes are influenced by collection priorities regarding the genetic diversity target. In summary, current collections are insufficient (not reaching targets) and suboptimal (not efficiently designed), and we show how improvements can be made.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据