Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39806772›Full record

ArticleAnnals of botany2025

Conservation genomics within government led conservation planning: an Australian case study exploring cost and benefit for threatened flora.

Chantelle A T Doyle, Manuela Cascini, Jia-Yee Samantha Yap, Hannah Matthews, Patricia M Hogbin, Trevor C Wilson, Erica Mahon, Dianne Brown, Aaron Mulcahy, Rachel Brown and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of botany, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. DioeciousAoB PLANTS · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Chantelle A T DoyleResearch Centre for Ecosystem Resilience, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5102-3710
Manuela CasciniResearch Centre for Ecosystem Resilience, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Jia-Yee Samantha YapResearch Centre for Ecosystem Resilience, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Hannah MatthewsNSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - Biodiversity, Conservation and Science, Parramatta, NSW, 2150, Australia.
Patricia M HogbinResearch Centre for Ecosystem Resilience, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.
Trevor C WilsonPlant Discovery and Evolution, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Mount Annan, NSW, 2567, Australia.
Erica MahonNSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - Biodiversity, Conservation and Science, Parramatta, NSW, 2150, Australia.
Dianne BrownNSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - Biodiversity, Conservation and Science, Parramatta, NSW, 2150, Australia.
Aaron MulcahyNSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - Biodiversity, Conservation and Science, Parramatta, NSW, 2150, Australia.
Rachel BrownNSW Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water - Biodiversity, Conservation and Science, Parramatta, NSW, 2150, Australia.
Maurizio RossettoResearch Centre for Ecosystem Resilience, Botanic Gardens of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of conserving plant genetic diversity has been recognized since the 1980s, but genetic research tools for improving conservation remain largely absent from standard planning. Using an Australian case study framework of the New South Wales government's Saving our Species (SoS) programme, we outline the costs and benefits associated with conducting genomic analysis within a conservation strategy to inform, for example, taxonomic resolution, targeted monitoring, translocations and ex situ collections. Despite a reported sentiment that costs are prohibitive, our study identified that where genetics reports have been provided (32 to date), the cost of genetic sampling, analysis and advice is <10 % of the total government investment (SoS programme) and will continue decreasing proportionally throughout the years as other management occurs. We identified that the largest government investment was for maintenance and monitoring actions. On-ground practitioner feedback from the reports identified that the main reason for requesting genetics was to inform translocation or ex situ collection. However, from the total of 269 plant species with translocation or ex situ conservation actions planned, 75.4 % still do not have provisions for genomics, suggesting that knowledge of the utility of this practice is low among practitioners. Responsive feedback also demonstrated that 90 % of respondents seek additional learning, and thus there is merit in providing future genomics-focused workshops.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEndangered SpeciesGenomicsPlantsAustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisGenetic VariationGovernmentNew South Walesbudgetconservationcostgeneticspolicypopulation geneticsThreatened plants

Identifiers

PMID39806772
PMCPMC12259528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.