DOI: 10.5061/dryad.bcc2fqzht
title: Data from: Publication and use of genetics tools in conservation management applications: a systematic review

description: Genetic tools are used in applied conservation management for taxonomic
 identification, delineation of management units, management of wild
 populations, captive breeding and reintroduction, and control of invasive
 species, disease, and hybridisation.  To assess the extent to
 which genetics tools are being used for applied conservation management,
 we conducted a systematic literature review of over 53,767 papers
 focussing on wildlife research that reported results on species
 delineation, translocations, and population augmentation. We synthesised
 information on papers that used genetics tools in an expressly applied
 manner across all wildlife species.  We found that the
 application of genetics tools in conservation management was biased
 towards fishes, mammals, and birds and northern hemisphere locations,
 especially the USA and Europe.  Despite genetics tools being a
 highly published topic, it was difficult to find published applications of
 these tools in both the primary and the grey literature. Of the 115 papers
 on 152 species that could be considered an applied use of a genetics tool
 expressly for conservation management, only 49 had definable applied
 outcomes. The remaining 66 made recommendations, but it was often unclear
 if the recommendations were ever used to make conservation management
 decisions because of the time-lag between publication of the initial
 recommendation and publication of the results of the use of the tool in a
 conservation management situation, as well as the lack of dissemination in
 the primary literature.   Our study highlights the relatively low
 publication rate of applications of genetics tools compared to the general
 conservation genetics field. These tools appear to have either a low
 percentage of translations into publication (‘conservation genetics
 publishing gap’) or a poor uptake among wildlife conservation managers
 (‘conservation genetics gap’)—the two are indistinguishable in this
 review. Policy implications. Conservation genetics tools must be brought
 to the forefront of conservation policy and management. Users should
 support the use of systems and accessible databases to increase the uptake
 of genetic tools for conservation in applied management decisions for
 wildlife, reducing barriers to disseminating the results to other end
 users and interested parties.
description: Publications in the field of
 conservation genetics that use applied genetics tools for the management
 of a species were identified through a search of Google, Google Scholar,
 Medline, SciELO, and Scopus databases using the following terms: wildlife
 AND “conservation genetics”, “applied conservation genetics”,
 “conservation genetics management”, "conservation genomics"
 "conservation genetics" and "invertebrates",
 “conservation genetics” and “fisheries management”, new species
 “conservation management” “DNA barcoding” -fungi -plants, new species
 “applied conservation” “DNA barcoding” -fungi -plants, from the dates
 1980–2020 (inclusive). We used an iterative approach to keywords,
 selecting new keywords as new papers were obtained, workshopping what
 words worked, and supplementing the searched datasets with targeted
 journal searches (Animal Conservation, Annual Reviews, Applied Ecology,
 Basic and Applied Ecology, Biological Conservation, Biodiversity and
 Conservation, Conservation Biology, Conservation Genetics, Conservation
 Letters, Ecological Applications, Journal of Applied Ecology, Journal of
 Wildlife Management, Molecular Ecology, and Oryx). Because of this
 iterative approach and noting a lack of fisheries-based papers, we
 specifically searched the databases using the word “fish” and “fisheries”.
 Web of Science was not used as a subscription was not available. No
 geographic constraints were applied and publications in English, Spanish,
 and Portuguese were evaluated.  Wildlife was used to mean wild animals and
 included invertebrates, amphibians, fishes, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
 We developed <em>a priori</em> selection criteria to prevent
 mission creep (Haddaway et al., 2020). Specifically, studies must concern
 the application of conservation genetics tools to wildlife conservation
 interventions directly, in both<em> in situ </em>(wild) and
 <em>ex situ </em>(zoos or other captive breeding) situations.
 This means that interventions such as translocation or species
 identification were directly impacted by the use of the genetic tool and
 were included, while other interventions, such as habitat protection, only
 tangentially use the product of the genetic tool, and were not included.
 The initial search resulted in 53,767 publications, which were
 subsequently reviewed for relevance and repeats excluded. After applying
 these criteria, 472 publications from the initial search were further
 investigated at the abstract or full text level. 
 Each paper was categorised as
 having either “recommendations only” or “successful application” of
 conservation genetics tools. The "recommendations only" category
 included papers where a conservation genetics tool was used, but an actual
 applied on-ground outcome was not evident in either the paper or a further
 search of the grey literature (up to 2020). The successful application
 category included papers where a conservation genetics tool was used, and
 an applied, on-ground intervention occurred as a direct result of the data
 from the conservation genetics tool. For instance, the paper by Nash et
 al. (2018) used single nucleotide polymorphic markers (SNPs) to assign
 pangolin seizures from illegal trade to possible geographic sources based
 on known-origin pangolin samples. The paper then recommended the use of
 the tool to repatriate illegally traded pangolins and to explore the
 possibility of lineage-based taxonomic units. As this paper was published
 in 2018, there is thus far no published evidence that either
 recommendation has been used; therefore, the paper is listed as
 “recommendation only”. Conversely, the paper by Morin et al. (2010) used
 mitochondrial genomes to determine that rather than one cosmopolitan orca
 species, the three “ecotypes” should be elevated to full species. These
 recommendations, based on the genetics tool, resulted in the recognition
 of types of orca (resident, transient and offshore), and while the
 taxonomy has not been resolved, the types are treated differently under
 conservation legislation (e.g. Rehberg-Besler & Jefferies, 2019),
 and therefore this paper is considered an application of a conservation
 genetics tool.