Committed genetic erosion: parallels from climate science for proactive conservation

Robyn E Shaw , Carole P Elliott, Joachim Mergeay, Gernot Segelbacher, Robert Blasiak, David J Coates, Jessica M da Silva, Katherine A Farquharson, Sean M. Hoban, Albert Norström, Kym Ottewell, Sibelle Torres Vilaça, Peter Bridgewater, Ancuta Fedorca, Christina Hvilsom, T H Jones, Francine Kershaw, Sarah Elizabeth Perkins-Kirkpatrick, Linda Laikre, Anna J MacDonald, Alicia Mastretta-Yanes, Mariah Meek, Cinnamon Mittan-Moreau, Isa-Rita M. Russo, Catherine E. Grueber

While climate science recognises that past emissions lock in future impacts ("committed climate change"), the idea of lagged losses is less embedded in biodiversity policy. This is particularly true for genetic diversity loss (genetic erosion), the least visible dimension of the biodiversity crisis. To highlight this risk, we introduce the term "committed genetic erosion": future losses set in motion by past habitat loss, fragmentation, and population decline. Using parallels from climate science, we develop four arguments for biodiversity policy: genetic diversity loss is already widespread; biological inertia locks in further loss under business as usual; indicators and forecasting tools can quantify risk and project trajectories; and proactive interventions are more effective than reactive responses or speculative technological fixes. Critically, genetic inertia operates locally, providing a tractable window for restoring connectivity, maintaining viable effective population sizes, and well-planned genetic rescue. Acting now will safeguard the adaptive potential that underpins biodiversity resilience.