Editorial: Restoration genetics and genomics

Editorial on the Research Topic
Restoration genetics and genomics

Currently, there are more than 157,100 species listed on the IUCN Red List, with more than 44,000 species threatened with extinction, including 41% of amphibians, 36% of reef building corals, 34% of conifers, 26% of mammals and 12% of birds (https://www.iucnredlist.org/). For example, recent assessment of freshwater fauna discovered that one-quarter of freshwater species are threatened with extinction (Sayer et al., 2025). Considering the decline in biodiversity, restoration of extinct populations has become a key component of conservation biology, and restoration efforts have emerged as a critical intervention to safeguard highly endangered species.

Given current methodological and technical advances, genetic data can be generated cost-effectively and rapidly, even for non-model species. While genomic research was focussed on model and domestic species in the past, numerous initiatives such as the Earth BioGenome Project, Darwin Tree of Life Project and the European Reference Genome Atlas are now dedicated to creating high-quality reference genomes for non-model species. These genome data are expected to greatly enhance the conservation efforts for many endangered species in the near future. In this pursuit, genetics and genomics have become indispensable tools, contributing significantly to the success of restoration initiatives over recent decades (Hansen et al., 2025).

A fundamental question in restoration concerns where individuals should be sourced from, and how they should be managed over time. Scheideman et al. address this Research Topic through a century-long perspective on American bison reintroduction in Colorado. Despite small population sizes and historical bottlenecks, management and controlled gene flow among herds have avoided inbreeding and maintained high genetic diversity. Their findings demonstrate that even small populations can remain genetically viable with appropriate management strategies.

The importance of evaluating restoration is also illustrated by Dimond et al., who use genome-wide SNP data to show how early hatchery practices reduced allelic richness and increased relatedness, while recent management adjustments have improved genetic outcomes.

Beyond individual-based assessments, restoration increasingly benefits from non-invasive approaches that operate at ecosystem scales. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is an eco-friendly survey method for conservation and restoration in particular of fragile ecosystems (Sahu et al., 2025). In the Research Topic Brenkman et al. demonstrate how environmental DNA (eDNA), in combination with historical records, can reconstruct species occupancy of non-native fish introduced to mountain lakes. Their study demonstrates how molecular tools can uncover cryptic persistence of introduced species and guide targeted restoration actions to benefit native taxa. Similarly, Rishan et al. demonstrate the effectiveness of eDNA-based approaches to detect elusive and locally endangered species, enabling molecular surveillance to track population changes and evaluate restoration outcomes, when traditional methods are impractical or inefficient.

Finally, Valenzuela-Turner et al. provide a forward-looking synthesis of how molecular data can transform conservation strategies for Darwin’s fox by addressing critical knowledge gaps in taxonomy, demography, and population structure - information that is essential for guiding future restoration, translocation, and genetic rescue efforts.

All studies demonstrates the power of modern genetic and genomic data for successful management of endangered species. Today, genetics of wildlife goes well beyond simply analysing diversity metrics or focusing on inbreeding. By integrating molecular data across temporal and spatial scales, from ecosystem-level monitoring to individual-based genotypes, restoration genomics provides a powerful framework for designing, evaluating, and adapting conservation actions.

Author contributions

AL: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. DF: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The authors AL, DF declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Hansen M. M., Edwards C., Grossen C., Kardos M., Laikre L., and Ramakrishnan U. (2025). Conservation genomics – making a difference. Mol. Ecol. 34, e70191. doi: 10.1111/mec.70191

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sahu A., Singh M., Amin A., Malik M. M., Qadri S. N., and Abubakr A. (2025). A systematic review on environmental DNA (eDNA) science: An eco-friendly survey method for conservation and restoration of fragile ecosystems. Ecol. Indic. 173, 113441. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113441

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sayer C. A., Fernando E., Jimenez R. R., Macfarlane N. B. W., Rapacciuolo G., Böhm M., et al. (2025). One-quarter of freshwater fauna threatened with extinction. Nature 638, 138–145. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08375-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar