4.6 Article

Non-invasive genetic sampling is one of our most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring: a reply to Lavery et al.

期刊

BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 723-728

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10531-022-02377-x

关键词

Genetic tagging; Petrogale; Threatened species; Mark-recapture; Minimally-invasive sampling

资金

  1. CAUL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Noninvasive genetic sampling is a powerful and ethical tool for threatened species population monitoring, but lack of familiarity with its requirements may have hindered its full potential. It is important to understand and address the challenges in implementing this tool to avoid missed opportunities for effective conservation efforts.
Noninvasive genetic sampling (genetic tagging) of individuals is one of the most powerful and ethical tools for threatened species population monitoring. A recent review of the threats to Australia's rock-wallabies (Petrogale spp.) and the methods for their monitoring stated that noninvasive genetic sampling (faecal DNA analysis) is not viable for estimating population size and trends for species in this genus. We feel that it is important to respond as such statements have the potential to stifle the development and application of an important tool for threatened species monitoring and lead to lost opportunities for collection of high-quality data to inform conservation of these species. We take the opportunity to describe the breadth of successful application of noninvasive genetic sampling for monitoring rock wallabies and other mammal taxa, the research and development requirements for successful implementation of noninvasive DNA-based population monitoring and thoughts on why this powerful approach has not been implemented to its full potential in many jurisdictions. We need to be careful not to dismiss one of the most powerful and ethical threatened species monitoring tools due to lack of familiarity with the requirements for its implementation.

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

4.6
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