From ed88cd0e44f8b463a47994728465079bf5f1d049 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sofiaszu <141949386+sofiaszu@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:22:51 -0600
Subject: [PATCH] add text to section

---
 .../Gen_div_advantages.md                     | 25 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)

diff --git a/docs/2_Theoretical_background/Gen_div_advantages.md b/docs/2_Theoretical_background/Gen_div_advantages.md
index 3d590a7..5eb7536 100644
--- a/docs/2_Theoretical_background/Gen_div_advantages.md
+++ b/docs/2_Theoretical_background/Gen_div_advantages.md
@@ -7,4 +7,29 @@ nav_order: 5
 
 # Genetic diversity - advantages
 
+Although DNA-based studies are preferred to estimate genetic indicators, DNA studies require time and financial resources. A genetic study estimating Ne in five populations, for example, might take one to three years from planning to DNA analysis and cost 10 to 30K USD for supplies and 50-200K for personnel. Staff must also have technical training in molecular techniques, population genetics, and bioinformatics. Because of this, most countries still lack population genetic data for most species. 
+
+In contrast, data for the Ne 500 and Populations Maintained indicators **can be rapidly gathered using existing resources and data** (e.g., reports, scientific and citizen science databases, and expert and local knowledge). And the person quantifying the indicators **does not need molecular training**, but some help or collaboration from a geneticist would be useful. DNA based **data are not needed** (although useful if available). Indeed, the genetic indicators were designed to enable the tracking and reporting of genetic information at large scales by all countries, recognizing that in many species DNA has not been analyzed to support conserving genetic diversity for most species.
+
+The three genetic diversity indicators have the following important features (see [Hoban et al 2023a](https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-022-01492-0), and [Hoban et al 2023c](https://doi.org/10.32942/X2QK5W)):
+
+* are **scientifically valid**, based in core conservation and genetic concepts
+
+* are **affordable and feasible** with existing data 
+
+* require a moderate to **low time and resource investment**
+
+* leverage diverse data and **multiple ways of knowing including local knowledge** holders
+
+* often **align with other biodiversity assessments**
+
+* allow for **easy translation into policy and management** of species
+
+* are **applicable and relevant in all countries**, taxonomic groups, and ecosystems (and can be disaggregated to these levels).
+
+* use concepts that are **intuitive or accessible to non-geneticists** (e.g. genetic losses due to small populations and loss of populations).
+  
+* are **‘forward compatible’**, meaning they can incorporate new methods that arise
+
+Genetic diversity indicators have multiple practical uses beyond reporting. They can help countries understand and mitigate genetic diversity loss by guiding conservation action, improve allocation of resources, communicate to the public about genetic threats to flagship species, and may be useful in informing other legislation, including those directed toward national level species protection. Moreover, these genetic diversity indicators can highlight how local populations provide adaptation and resilience, which facilitates empowerment and leverage for local communities and indigenous peoples.