ArticleBioscience2023
Species conservation in the era of genomic science.
Article in Bioscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Advancing Marine Mammal Conservation Through Omics Tools and Integration of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge.Molecular ecology · 2026Review
- Massive Genetic Diversity Loss Within Asian Elephant Subspecies: New Insights for Determining Conservation Priorities.Genome biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Conservation genetics and genetic vulnerability of Craigia yunnanensis (Malvaceae), a relict plant species with extremely small populations from Southwest China.Annals of botany · 2026Article
- Biodiversity Genomics Research Practices Require Harmonising to Meet Stakeholder Needs in Conservation.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Discordance between taxonomy and population genomic data: An avian example relevant to the United States Endangered Species Act.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The exponential increase in the availability of genomic data, derived from sequencing thousands of loci or whole genomes, provides exciting new insights into the diversity of life. However, it can also challenge established species concepts and existing management regimes derived from these concepts. Genomic data can help inform decisions about how to manage genetic diversity, but policies that protect identified taxonomic entities can generate conflicting recommendations that create challenges for practitioners. We outline three dimensions of management concern that arise when facing new and potentially conflicting interpretations of genomic data: defining conservation entities, deciding how to manage diversity, and evaluating the risks and benefits of management actions. We highlight the often-underappreciated role of values in influencing management choices made by individuals, scientists, practitioners, the public, and other stakeholders. Such values influence choices through mechanisms such as the Rashomon effect, whereby management decisions are complicated by conflicting perceptions of the causes and consequences of the conservation problem. To illustrate how this might operate, we offer a hypothetical example of this effect for the interpretation of genomic data and its implications for conservation management. Such value-based decisions can be challenged by the rigidity of existing management regimes, making it difficult to achieve the necessary flexibility to match the changing biological understanding. We finish by recommending that both conservation geneticists and practitioners reflect on their respective values, responsibilities, and roles in building a more robust system of species management. This includes embracing the inclusion of stakeholders in decision-making because, as in many cases, there are not objectively defensible right or wrong decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.