Geology topics

Rebecca Jordan

Publications and source records attributed to Rebecca Jordan.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

DNA-based studies and genetic diversity indicator assessments are complementary approaches to conserving evolutionary potential

Genetic diversity is essential for maintaining healthy populations and ecosystems. Several approaches have recently been developed to evaluate population genetic trends without necessarily collecting new genetic data. Such “genetic diversity indicators” enable rapid, large-scale evaluation across dozens to thousands of species. Empirical genetic studies, when available, provide detailed information that is important for management, such as estimates of gene flow, inbreeding, genetic erosion and adaptation. In this article, we argue that the development and advancement of genetic diversity indicators is a complementary approach to genetic studies in conservation biology, but not a substitute. Genetic diversity indicators and empirical genetic data can provide different information for conserving genetic diversity. Genetic diversity indicators enable affordable tracking, reporting, prioritization and communication, although, being proxies, do not provide comprehensive evaluation of the genetic status of a species. Conversely, genetic methods offer detailed analysis of the genetic status of a given species or population, although they remain challenging to implement for most species globally, given current capacity and resourcing. We conclude that indicators and genetic studies are both important for genetic conservation actions and recommend they be used in combination for conserving and monitoring genetic diversity.

Conservation Genetics↗

USGS2024

Multinational evaluation of genetic diversity indicators for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Under the recently adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, 196 Parties committed to reporting the status of genetic diversity for all species. To facilitate reporting, three genetic diversity indicators were developed, two of which focus on processes contributing to genetic diversity conservation: maintaining genetically distinct populations and ensuring populations are large enough to maintain genetic diversity. The major advantage of these indicators is that they can be estimated with or without DNA-based data. However, demonstrating their feasibility requires addressing the methodological challenges of using data gathered from diverse sources, across diverse taxonomic groups, and for countries of varying socio-economic status and biodiversity levels. Here, we assess the genetic indicators for 919 taxa, representing 5271 populations across nine countries, including megadiverse countries and developing economies. Eighty-three percent of the taxa assessed had data available to calculate at least one indicator. Our results show that although the majority of species maintain most populations, 58% of species have populations too small to maintain genetic diversity. Moreover, genetic indicator values suggest that IUCN Red List status and other initiatives fail to assess genetic status, highlighting the critical importance of genetic indicators.

Ecology Letters↗

USGS2023

Monitoring status and trends in genetic diversity for the Convention on Biological Diversity: An ongoing assessment of genetic indicators in nine countries

Recent scientific evidence shows that genetic diversity must be maintained, managed, and monitored to protect biodiversity and nature's contributions to people. Three genetic diversity indicators, two of which do not require DNA-based assessment, have been proposed for reporting to the Convention on Biological Diversity and other conservation and policy initiatives. These indicators allow an approximation of the status and trends of genetic diversity to inform policy, using existing demographic and geographic information. Application of these indicators has been initiated and here we describe ongoing efforts in calculating these indicators with examples. We specifically describe a project underway to apply these indicators in nine countries, provide example calculations, address concerns of policy makers and implementation challenges, and describe a roadmap for further development and deployment, incorporating feedback from the broader community. We also present guidance documents and data collection tools for calculating indicators. We demonstrate that Parties can successfully and cost-effectively report these genetic diversity indicators with existing biodiversity observation data, and, in doing so, better conserve the Earth's biodiversity.

Conservation Letters↗

USGS2019

Try, try again: Lessons learned from success and failure in participatory modeling

Participatory Modeling (PM) is becoming increasingly common in environmental planning and conservation, due in part to advances in cyberinfrastructure as well as to greater recognition of the importance of engaging a diverse array of stakeholders in decision making. We provide lessons learned, based on over 200 years of the authors’ cumulative and diverse experience, about PM processes. These include successful and, perhaps more importantly, not-so-successful trials. Our collective interdisciplinary background has supported the development, testing, and evaluation of a rich range of collaborative modeling approaches. We share here what we have learned as a community of participatory modelers, within three categories of reflection: a) lessons learned about participatory modelers; b) lessons learned about the context of collaboration; and c) lessons learned about the PM process. First, successful PM teams encompass a variety of skills beyond modeling expertise. Skills include: effective relationship-building, openness to learn from local experts, awareness of personal motivations and biases, and ability to translate discussions into models and to assess success. Second, the context for collaboration necessitates a culturally appropriate process for knowledge generation and use, for involvement of community co-leads, and for understanding group power dynamics that might influence how people from different backgrounds interact. Finally, knowing when to use PM and when not to, managing expectations, and effectively and equitably addressing conflicts is essential. Managing the participation process in PM is as important as managing the model building process. We recommend that PM teams consider what skills are present within a team, while ensuring inclusive creative space for collaborative exploration and learning supported by simple yet relevant models. With a realistic view of what it entails, PM can be a powerful approach that builds collective knowledge and social capital, thus helping communities to take charge of their future and address complex social and environmental problems.

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene↗

USGS2018

Twelve questions for the participatory modeling community

Participatory modeling engages the implicit and explicit knowledge of stakeholders to create formalized and shared representations of reality and has evolved into a field of study as well as a practice. Participatory modeling researchers and practitioners who focus specifically on environmental resources met at the National Socio‐Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) in Annapolis, Maryland, over the course of 2 years to discuss the state of the field and future directions for participatory modeling. What follows is a description of 12 overarching groups of questions that could guide future inquiry.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2018

Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job

Various tools and methods are used in participatory modelling, at different stages of the process and for different purposes. The diversity of tools and methods can create challenges for stakeholders and modelers when selecting the ones most appropriate for their projects. We offer a systematic overview, assessment, and categorization of methods to assist modelers and stakeholders with their choices and decisions. Most available literature provides little justification or information on the reasons for the use of particular methods or tools in a given study. In most of the cases, it seems that the prior experience and skills of the modelers had a dominant effect on the selection of the methods used. While we have not found any real evidence of this approach being wrong, we do think that putting more thought into the method selection process and choosing the most appropriate method for the project can produce better results. Based on expert opinion and a survey of modelers engaged in participatory processes, we offer practical guidelines to improve decisions about method selection at different stages of the participatory modeling process.

Environmental Modeling and Software↗

USGS2017

Purpose, processes, partnerships, and products: four Ps to advance participatory socio-environmental modeling

Including stakeholders in environmental model building and analysis is an increasingly popular approach to understanding ecological change. This is because stakeholders often hold valuable knowledge about socio-environmental dynamics and collaborative forms of modeling produce important boundary objects used to collectively reason about environmental problems. Although the number of participatory modeling (PM) case studies and the number of researchers adopting these approaches has grown in recent years, the lack of standardized reporting and limited reproducibility have prevented PM's establishment and advancement as a cohesive field of study. We suggest a four-dimensional framework (4P) that includes reporting on dimensions of (1) the Purpose for selecting a PM approach (the why ); (2) the Process by which the public was involved in model building or evaluation (the how ); (3) the Partnerships formed (the who ); and (4) the Products that resulted from these efforts (the what ). We highlight four case studies that use common PM software-based approaches (fuzzy cognitive mapping, agent-based modeling, system dynamics, and participatory geospatial modeling) to understand human–environment interactions and the consequences of ecological changes, including bushmeat hunting in Tanzania and Cameroon, agricultural production and deforestation in Zambia, and groundwater management in India. We demonstrate how standardizing communication about PM case studies can lead to innovation and new insights about model-based reasoning in support of ecological policy development. We suggest that our 4P framework and reporting approach provides a way for new hypotheses to be identified and tested in the growing field of PM.

Ecological Applications↗