Genetic diversity and IUCN Red List status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is an important and widely used tool for conservation assessment. The IUCN uses information about a species' range, population size, habitat quality and fragmentation levels, and trends in abundance to assess extinction risk. Genetic diversity is not considered, although it affects extinction risk. Declining populations are more strongly affected by genetic drift and higher rates of inbreeding, which can reduce the efficiency of selection, lead to fitness declines, and hinder species' capacities to adapt to environmental change. Given the importance of conserving genetic diversity, attempts have been made to find relationships between red-list status and genetic diversity. Yet, there is still no consensus on whether genetic diversity is captured by the current IUCN Red List categories in a way that is informative for conservation. To assess the predictive power of correlations between genetic diversity and IUCN Red List status in vertebrates, we synthesized previous work and reanalyzed data sets based on 3 types of genetic data: mitochondrial DNA, microsatellites, and whole genomes. Consistent with previous work, species with higher extinction risk status tended to have lower genetic diversity for all marker types, but these relationships were weak and varied across taxa. Regardless of marker type, genetic diversity did not accurately identify threatened species for any taxonomic group. Our results indicate that red-list status is not a useful metric for informing species-specific decisions about the protection of genetic diversity and that genetic data cannot be used to identify threat status in the absence of demographic data. Thus, there is a need to develop and assess metrics specifically designed to assess genetic diversity and inform conservation policy, including policies recently adopted by the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".