ArticleAnnals of botany2025
Conservation genomics within government led conservation planning: an Australian case study exploring cost and benefit for threatened flora.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- DioeciousAoB PLANTS · 2026Article
- Low genetic differentiation among morphologically distinct Cycas species informs the delineation of conservation management units.Annals of botany · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.