Indicator 3 - which data is needed for this indicator to be 1

[heue...@gmail.com]

Hello,

The France indicator team has a question regarding indicator 3. It is not directly relevant for filling Kobo forms, but for the interpretation of genetic data for indicator 3. 

In the Monday webinar Alicia stated that in the case of Juniperus monticola, there was phylogenetic/phylogeographic data, but considered that there was no genetic monitoring, i.e., indicator 3 was 0.

How ambitious do we have to be for indicator 3 to be 1? Do we need nuclear genetic data, or is plastid/mitochondrial sufficient, and is a snapshot in time sufficient?

Perhaps this can be discussed in one of our group meetings?

Best wishes,

Myriam and the team 

[vcmi]

That is a very good discussion point. 

The way I treated the it in my presentation was that it was 1 if there is genetic monitoring. I considered it yes if there was data across several time points, i.e. temporal data. And I considered it as no when the genetic data was from one time point and for phylogenetic/ phytogeographic studies. 

Best regards

/ Viktoria 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Genetic indicators project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to genetic-indicators-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genetic-indicators-project/4e14965a-b109-4a07-bc2a-d6a89ef028f8n%40googlegroups.com.

[Jessica da Silva]

I have also been thinking about this question and I was wondering if it would be more useful to have an additional numerical categorization instead of just binary.  Or at the very least, clearly define what would classify as 0 or 1.

I was thinking that we could use 0 if no genetic data exists (or just phylogenetic studies), 0.5 if population genetic data exists but only for a time point, and 1 if temporal genetic monitoring is being conducted. I haven't applied this, but welcome people''s thoughts. 

  Jess

 

 

Jessica da Silva, PhD ▪  Senior Scientist, Evolutionary Genomics and Wildlife Management ▪ South African National Biodiversity Institute ▪ Office: 021-799-8860 ▪ Lab: 021-799-8749 ▪ Mobile: 079-045-1781 ▪ https://sites.google.com/site/jessicamdasilva/ ▪ ResearcherID: J-4290-2012 ▪ ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8385-1166

GEO BON - Genetic Composition Working Group ▪ Editor: African Journal of Herpetology ▪ World Congress of Herpetology - International Herpetological Committee ▪ IUCN, Species Survival Commission - Conservation Genetics Specialist Group, Chameleon Specialist Group

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genetic-indicators-project/HE1PR0902MB2089A416D486E5F18815FF9781079%40HE1PR0902MB2089.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com.

[Joachim Mergeay]

If I remember a discussion in one of the google docs, population-genetic assessments count as "genetic monitoring" whereas phylogeographic or phylogenetic studies are excluded. 

I wouldn't use the strict monitoring definition (>1 time point), as snapshot assessments can provide very valuable information on various summary statistics.

Joachim

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genetic-indicators-project/HE1PR0902MB2089A416D486E5F18815FF9781079%40HE1PR0902MB2089.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com.

--

Joachim Mergeay (he/him)

Research Institute for Nature and Forest - Belgium                                  

Associate Professor KULeuven Ecology Evolution and Biodiversity Conservation

Tel: +32 499 942 942

Meldpunt wolven Vlaamse overheid : wo...@inbo.be

///////////////////////////////////////////

[vcmi]

That’s a good point Joachim. Its not necessary to have collected at several time points to asses demographic history. Snapshots in time over population structure provides valuable data. But should this be considered monitoring in terms of that indicator? 

I included studies that assessed the genetic structure over time, regardless of whether through simulation or time series data. I didn’t include the ones that simply separated different populations and looked at heterozygosity etc. That may be wrong. But the note in template said temporal data. 

// Viktoria

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genetic-indicators-project/CAFP9MUvyvEUmd%3Dqw8M7cmRdhCyB4J7HNHopMbDVN5_jSik_28g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Linda Laikre]

As we did this in Sweden in Thurfjell et al we considered a 1 only if real monitoring with DNA existed. That is, following trends of genetic diversity over time in at least one population of the particular species.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/genetic-indicators-project/HE1PR0902MB2089B6A6A03908F041D13E5B81079%40HE1PR0902MB2089.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com.

--
Linda Laikre
Professor, Deputy Head of Department
Head of Division of Population Genetics
Director of Studies in Population Genetics
Department of Zoology
Stockholm University
SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
phone: +46 8 164283, +46 705 254574
email: linda....@popgen.su.se
www.su.se/zoologi
twitter: @Zoology_SU @LindaLaikre

[Alicia Mastretta]

Hi,

We also discussed this in the Mexican team in the context of Linda's presentation regarding the sources of genetic diversity loss and how each indicator targets them. Indicator 3 can be used to asses "human induced selection" and "spread of alien populations" (which could also be hybridization with close species due to e.g. climate change or human induced migration). In our case there are some species for which there is genetic data addressing exactly these two questions, even if there is no temporal data necessarily.

We think we could complement Indicator 3 in the kobo form to add something like the following:

* References of the studies (we realized these may be different than the references listed in the sections before)
* What type of results have genetic (monitoring or not) studies found:

- No evidence for human induced selection

- Evidence of human induced selection

- No evidence of spread of alien populations / hybridization 

- Evidence of spread of alien populations / hybridization 

... or something similar we should discuss before making any changes.

I told the group I would discuss this with you. So given that there seem to be others with similar questions I think it is worth putting it somewhere in our meeting agendas.

Cheers,

Alicia

[shoban]

Great discussion!  This is now on next week's meeting agenda (Tuesday)