Text All 2511
Text All 2511
Citation: Maxted N, Magos Brehm J and Kell S (2013) Resource book for preparation
of national conservation plans for crop wild relatives and landraces.
CONTENTS
CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. i
CONTEXT .................................................................................................................................... 1
i
SECTION B. LANDRACES ............................................................................................ 263
B.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 263
Annex 3. Consolidated list major and minor crop genera ................................................ cdxli
ii
SUMMARY
Crop wild relatives and landraces are key components of plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture (PGRFA) and of overall agricultural biodiversity (or
agrobiodiversity). Both of these plant groups are genetically diverse, locally
adapted and represent a potential source of traits for adapting crops to changing
environmental conditions and human needs, particularly in the face of the
increasing negative impacts of climate change. If efficiently preserved and
sustainably used, they can contribute significantly to an increase in food security,
alleviation of human poverty and improvement of ecosystem stability. However,
the diversity of both crop wild relatives and landraces is severely threatened by
environmental mismanagement and socio-political pressures and is quickly being
eroded or lost.
The resource book is divided into two parts: Part 1 focuses on the political and
economic context of conservation and use of agrobiodiversity, and aims to provide
national decision-makers with an overview of the key elements influencing this
sector. Part 2 focuses on the technical aspects of planning genetic conservation
and provides detailed protocols for planning and implementing complementary
conservation activities. Particular importance is placed on: (a) the creation of
national inventories; (b) prioritizing taxa for active conservation; (c) collation of
iii
taxonomic, ecogeographic, genetic and threat data; (d) in situ and ex situ gap
analysis; (e) development and implementation of complementary in situ and ex
situ conservation recommendations, (f) monitoring conserved diversity; and (g)
making the critical link between conservation and use to ensure the conserved
resources are sustainably exploited. The protocols are illustrated with real-life
examples and an extensive list of additional materials is provided to help the user
in their work.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Resource book was commissioned by FAO, as part of the ongoing work on
implementing the rolling Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture; in particular, Priority Activity Areas 1 to 4, which address in
situ conservation and management.
A wide range of people have been involved in developing the content of this
publication. The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution made in
developing the structure and content of this publication by the experts who
attended the workshop “Conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA, a Toolkit for
National Strategy development” held in Lyme Regis, United Kingdom, 17th and
18th March 2011. In alphabetical order by family name: Nadiya Al-Saadi, Achille
Ephrem Assogbadjo, Tania Carolina Camacho-Villa, Edwin Chiwona, Sónia Dias,
Ehsan Dulloo, Heli Fitzgerald, Baorong Lu, Valeria Negri, Suzanne Sharrock,
Renzo Torricelli, José Valls and John Wiersema. We also wish to acknowledge the
input of a number of experts who reviewed an early draft of the document: Maria
Cristina Duarte, Dionysia Fasoula, Maarit Heinonen, José M. Iriondo, Helena
Korpelainen, Juozas Labokas, Pedro Mendes Moreira, María Luisa Rubio-Teso,
Tsevetelina Stoilova and John Wiersema, as well as those who provided some of
the case studies and reference material: Jure Čop, Maria Cristina Duarte, Dionysia
Fasoula, Vojtech Holubec, Marina Hovhannisyan, José M. Iriondo, Juozas
Labokas, Pedro Mendes Moreira, María Luisa Rubio-Teso, Juan José Ruiz
Martinez, Tamara Smekalova, Tsevetelina Stoilova and Rudolf Vögel.
The content of this document is entirely the responsibility of the authors, and does
not necessarily represent the views of the FAO, or its Members.
v
CONTEXT
1.1 Importance of agrobiodiversity for food security
A countries crop wild relatives (CWR) and landraces (LR) diversity constitute an
important component of a nation’s natural resources, as plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture (PGRFA) they are available for utilisation by national,
regional and international stakeholders; and form the basis of food and livelihood
security (Maxted et al., 2011).
CWR are species closely related to crops and are defined by their potential ability
to contribute beneficial traits for crop improvement (Maxted et al., 2006). They
have been used increasingly in plant breeding since the early 20th century and
have provided vital genetic diversity for crop improvement—for example, to
confer resistance to pests and diseases, improve tolerance to environmental
conditions such as extreme temperatures, drought and flooding and to improve
nutrition, flavour, colour, texture and handling qualities (Hajjar and Hodgkin 2007,
Maxted and Kell 2009). Almost all modern varieties of crops contain some genes
derived from a CWR and in monetary terms, CWR have contributed significantly
to the agricultural and horticultural industries, and to the world economy (Maxted
et al. 2008a, Maxted and Kell 2009). Furthermore, as CWR are components of
natural and semi-natural ecosystems, they also play a role in ecosystem
functioning and thus in broader environmental sustainability and maintenance of
ecosystem services.
The particular food security value of CWR has been recognized at least since
Darwin discussed their study and conservation (1868), but it was Vavilov (1926)
who was the first to promote their systematic conservation in practical terms.
However, CWR conservation had remained widely neglected because the
responsibility for their conservation has neither been adopted by agricultural
agencies (whose remit is not wild species conservation) nor environment agencies
(whose focus is not on PGRFA conservation). It is only relatively recently that
their systematic conservation been addressed due to the growing interest in their
use as gene donors (e.g., Maxted et al., 1997a; Meilleur and Hodgkin, 2004;
Heywood and Dulloo, 2005; Stolton et al., 2006; Maxted et al., 2008a), even though
their value as gene donors has been extensively documented since the 1970s (e.g.,
Frankel, 1970; Jain, 1975; Prescott-Allen and Prescott Allen, 1986; Hoyt, 1988).
Their economic value is now understood; for example, one recent estimate is that
approximately 30% of modern crop production increase is due to the use of CWR
genetic diversity and that this has an annual value of approximately US $115
billion worldwide (Pimentel et al., 1997).
2
Cucurbit landrace ‘Santorini. Photo: N. Maxted Paul Watkins with wheat landrace
‘Squareheads Master’ Photo: N. Maxted
The increasing human population, periodic food shortages and current and
expected effects of climate change have all led to raised awareness of the need for
more attention to be paid to global and national food security. Globally,
agriculture is being practiced in more adverse or marginal environments, whether
due to human degradation of habitats, the demand for food forcing the expansion
of agricultural lands or the effects of climate change. As a consequence, there is
growing demand for the development of new varieties that can be adapted to these
marginal environments and to the changing environmental conditions that have
been rapidly evolving in recent years (Heywood et al., 2007), as well as those
expected in the coming decades due to the effects of climate change. This has
stimulated the search for genetic material that can be used to confer pest and
disease resistance and tolerance to various environmental conditions—in
particular, resistance to drought, flooding and heat stress—in turn enhancing
productivity, for which CWR and LR are potential sources (Heywood, 2007; Negri
et al., 2009). Additionally, inter- and intra-species crossing techniques have
rapidly developed, facilitating the use of LR and CWR diversity in the
improvement and creation of new varieties. Some examples include the use of:
Oryza rufipogon to confer cold tolerance and other abiotic stress resistance in rice
(O. sativa) in China (Song et al., 2005), Thinopyrum intermedium and Th. ponticum
to improve wheat (Triticum aestivum) for barley yellow dwarf virus immunity
which was released all across the World (Ayala et al., 2001), Arachis batizocoi, A.
cardenasii, A. duranensis, A. stenosperma and A. villosa for rust and late leaf spot
resistant to peanut (A. hypogaea) in India (Singh et al., 2003), amongst many
others (see Maxted and Kell, 2009 for reviews).
3
novel varieties adapted to the new environmental conditions that have rapidly
‘evolved’ in recent years, as well as to meet the short‐term adaptation goal of
breeding new varieties that address changing consumer demands (Heywood et al.
2007). Additionally, inter and intra-species crossing techniques have rapidly
developed facilitating the use of CWR and LR diversity in the improvement and
creation of new varieties.
While climate change will directly impact CWR diversity, it will also undoubtedly
alter the agro-environmental conditions under which our crops grow and thus
impact agricultural production. It is likely that many current crop varieties will
need replacement to enable them to better suit the new and changing agro-
environments (e.g. Jones et al. 2003, Duveiller et al. 2007, Deryng et al. 2011, Li et
al. 2011, Luck et al. 2011). Failure to meet this challenge could have a devastating
impact on the global economy and social well-being. Genetic diversity offers an
insurance against the harmful impacts of climate change and CWR are
particularly likely to contain the breadth of genetic diversity necessary to combat
these impacts because of the diversity of habitats in which they grow and wide
range of conditions to which they are adapted (FAO 2008). Changes in climate are
also expected to augment the risk of pest and disease spread and to affect
precipitation regimes and cropping patterns in cultivated species, thus also
affecting LR (Veteläinen et al. 2009a, Mercer and Perales 2010). Nevertheless,
climatic change can lead to non‐analogous climate conditions and their
consequences are thus difficult to predict. Therefore, CWR and LR diversity is
under threat from climate change, while at the same time they offer a critical
means of mitigating the predicted impact of changes in climate.
4
1.2 Threats and demands for agrobiodiversity
Despite the importance of CWR and LR, there is an increasing loss of this diversity
due to a number of social, economic and ecological factors:
a. CWR and LR are expected to be affected by climate change (e.g., see
Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; Root et al., 2003; Thuiller et al., 2005; Jarvis et
al., 2008; Lenoir et al., 2008)— changes that are expected to augment the
risk of pest and disease spread and to affect precipitation regimes and
cropping patterns in cultivated species (Veteläinen et al., 2009a; Mercer
and Perales, 2010);
b. LR are being lost due to their replacement with modern cultivars, the
pressure of changing markets, as well as family needs and aspirations,
which may include the abandonment of traditional practices; while CWR,
like any other wild plant species are threatened by the loss, degradation
and fragmentation of their natural habitats and competition from alien
species;
c. CWR are often associated with disturbed habitats such as field margins,
forest edges and roadsides, and these populations are not being adequately
conserved by ecosystem conservation agencies;
d. LR are often associated with low-input traditional farming systems, many of
which are being converted to more intensive high-input systems;
e. CWR and LR diversity suffers from a lack of knowledge regarding its
breadth, location and real use potential; for example, inventories are
lacking for most countries and conserved CWR and LR diversity is largely
uncharacterised or unevaluated (FAO 2010a). In particular, the lack of
knowledge on how many traditional seed-saved varieties remain extant as
well as on their traditional cultivation practices has been a severe
constraint in their conservation and utilization. LR are commonly
maintained by older people and diversity is being lost as their cultivation is
not being undertaken by younger generations (Maxted 2006).
Further, climate change is predicted to have an even greater impact on diversity.
Average temperatures are predicted to rise by 2–4°C over the next 50 years and
cause considerable disturbance to regional and seasonal patterns of precipitation
(IPCC 2007). Climate acts directly on growth and reproduction of plant species
(e.g., Andrello et al. 2012) through physiological constraints and/or indirectly
through ecological factors such as competition for resources (Shao and Halpin
1995), so changes in climate will inevitably affect species’ survival. Several studies
have already reported significant effects of climatic change over ecosystems and
species (e.g. Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003). Fischlin et al. (2007), for
example, predict that by 2100, 10 30% of species globally are likely to go extinct as
a result of climate change. Negative effects of climate change include loss,
expansion, relocation and fragmentation of habitats, and changes in distribution,
abundance, phenology and physiology of a wide range of species (Hughes 2000,
Walther et al. 2002, Jarvis et al. 2008), as well as disruption of biotic interactions
(Hughes 2000).
Thuiller et al. (2005) modelled the impact of different climate change scenarios on
5
the distribution of 1350 plant species and concluded that more than half of the
species are predicted to become threatened with extinction by 2080 if they are
unable to disperse. On the other hand, plant taxa have the ability to respond to
climatic changes, as happened during the Quaternary when there were large‐scale
distribution shifts (Huntley 1990), so it is expected that they still maintain the
ability to do so. In fact, the Thuiller et al. (2005) study predicted that if taxa are
able to adapt through migration, then about 22% would become Critically
Endangered and 2% Extinct. Additionally, some studies have reported a shift in
species distribution towards the Poles or upwards in altitude with gradual earlier
seasonal migrations and breeding (e.g. Parmesan and Yohe 2003, Root et al. 2003,
Lenoir et al. 2008). Specifically for CWR, a comparative study of the likely impact
on three crop gene pools (Jarvis et al. 2008) found 16–22% of CWR species would
go extinct by 2055 and the majority of species showed greater than 50% loss of
distributional range and the range that remained was highly fragmented.
Yet there is increasing demand to utilise this threatened resource:
i. If crops are to increase production levels there is a need for new trait
diversity outside that which has been historically used by farmers and plant
breeders—CWR and LR offer the necessary, novel genetic diversity that can
enhance crop productivity or commodity improvement, promote disease
and pest resistance and increase tolerance of adverse or marginal
environments;
ii. Globally, agriculture is being practiced in more adverse or marginal
environments, whether due to human degradation of habitats or the
demand for food forcing the expansion of agricultural lands—the desired
traits to grow crops in these environments are found in LR and CWR
diversity;
iii. There is a continuous and growing demand for novel diversity by breeders
to be used in the development of new varieties due to the relatively short-
term commercial lifespan of modern cultivars (usually 5–10 years);
iv. Conventional and biotechnological breeding techniques have improved
dramatically in recent years enabling more precise targeting of desirable
traits, relatively easy transfer to the crop and less problems with the
transfer of unwanted characteristics from exotic LR and CWR material; and
v. The conservation of CWR in existing protected areas offers an additional
ecosystem service to the protected areas themselves, so for limited
additional resource commitment the perceived value of the protected areas
can be significantly enhanced.
While both CWR and LR diversity is threatened, at the same time it offers a critical
means of mitigating its impact on food security. Despite this wide recognition, it is
only very recently that efforts to systematically assess their threat status have
been undertaken. There are two main reasons for this: firstly, because of the
already identified gap in the remit of conservation agencies to conserve CWR, and
secondly, because of the technical challenges in quantifying and locating LR
diversity—a prerequisite to their threat assessment. The current status of the
threat to CWR and LR diversity is outlined in Box 2.
6
Box 2. Threat assessment of CWR and LR diversity—current status
Significant progress has been made in assessing the loss of botanical diversity,
particularly for regions where the flora is well known; for example, 21% of
European vascular plant species were classified as threatened using the 1994
IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN, 1994, and 50% of Europe’s 4,700
vascular plant endemics are considered to be threatened to some degree
(www.redlist.org). CWR are intrinsically no different to other wild plant species,
and, like them, many are currently threatened with loss of diversity and/or
extinction (Maxted et al., 1997b; Stolton et al., 2006), however, a review of Red List
assessments using the more detailed current IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria (IUCN, 2001) showed that of the more than 25,000 CWR species present
in Europe, less than 1% had been assessed (Kell et al., 2008). Further, Maxted and
Kell (2009) reviewed whether the CWR within 14 global priority crop gene pools
had been threat assessed and found that only one, Solanum, had been partially
assessed using the 2001 IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria.
Even though there is currently no comprehensive global review of CWR threat
assessment, if as shown by Kell et al. (2008) the majority of wild plant species may
be considered CWR (as there is at least one crop in the majority of genera), then a
Global Red List of plants would be indicative of the threat facing CWR. Therefore,
when the Sampled Red List Index for Plants project (Brummitt and Bachman 2010)
recently found that 20% of all plants are currently threatened with extinction it can
be implied that a similar proportion of CWR are likely to also be threatened.
However, more specifically for European CWR IUCN Red List assessment was
recently undertaken for 591 European CWR species in 25 crop gene pools/groups
(Bilz et al., 2011) and found that 11.5% (66) of the species are considered as
threatened, with 3.3% (19) of them being Critically Endangered, 4.4% (22)
Endangered and 3.8% (25) Vulnerable—a further 4.5% (26) of the species are
classified as Near Threatened. While outside of Europe as part of the UNEP/GEF-
supported project, ‘In situ conservation of crop wild relatives through enhanced
information management and field application’, Bolivian CWR were prioritized
and after collating ecogeographic data for 36 CWR genera and over 310 CWR
species, threat assessments were undertaken and found that 14.6% (45) of the
species are considered as threatened, with 2.3% (7) of them being Critically
Endangered, 7.1% (22) Endangered and 5.2% (16) Vulnerable—a further 6.5% (20) of
the species are classified as Near Threatened (Mora et al., 2009). It is anticipated
that these initiatives will act as a catalyst for more countries and regions to follow
suit.
CWR resources are primarily threatened by loss, degradation and fragmentation
of their natural habitats, whereas LR have been mostly affected by replacement
with modern cultivars and changes in land use practices (monocultures, use of
pesticides, etc.). Negri et al. (2009) argued that LR are the most threatened
element of PGRFA because: a) they are being replaced by modern varieties
promoted by agricultural advisors and breeding companies; b) the application of
variety and seed certification legislation mitigates against the legal sale of LR; c)
we have no idea how many traditional seed-saved varieties remain extant; d) we
know widely from anecdotal evidence that LR maintainers are almost invariably
elderly and their numbers are dwindling annually; e) the proportion of the total LR
7
diversity that is currently used by farmers or breeders is not systematically
conserved ex situ in gene banks; f) there is only a handful of working on-farm LR
conservation projects that are actively maintaining LR diversity; and g) LR
conservation falls outside the remit of conventional conservation agencies.
Having argued that LR are so uniquely threatened compared to other biodiversity
components, globally there is no agreed method of LR threat assessment and no
reliable estimate of how many LR are threatened.
Unlike CWR, it is not possible to use IUCN Red List Criteria within taxa, so they
cannot be applied for LR assessment. There have in recent years been several
attempts to either adapt the IUCN Red List Criteria or develop a parallel set of
criteria to assess the level of threat facing LR diversity (Joshi et al. 2004; Porfiri et
al. (2009) Padulosi et al., 2012). However, there are few data available to assess LR
extinction or genetic erosion—the data that are available are often not quantified
rigorously, largely anecdotal or are based on variety nomenclature rather actual
genetic diversity (FAO, 1999). However, there are individual papers that estimate
the threat to or loss of LR diversity within a specific region; for example, Hammer
et al. (1996) compared LR diversity extant between 1940 and 1991/93, and between
1950 and 1983/86 in Albania and southern Italy, and found that about 75% LR of all
crops had been lost.
Thus it appears that the current threats to CWR and LR diversity is significant, if
the potential threats posed by climate change are incorporated the threat to CWR
and LR diversity is unprecedented.
At a strategic policy level the threat and use potential are recognised; the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD 1992 and www.biodiv.org), the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(ITPGRFA) (www.planttreaty.org/) and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation
(GSPC) (www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/plant/) each stress the need
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation actions targeting
PGRFA. In decision VII/30, the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD
established the 2010 Biodiversity Targets (CBD 2002) that drew attention to the
importance of conserving the “genetic diversity of crops, livestock, and harvested
species of trees, fish and wildlife and other valuable species conserved … restore,
maintain, or reduce the decline of populations of species” and committed the
parties “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of
biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to
poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. Specifically in relation to
PGRFA, having failed to achieve previous targets, the GSPC (CBD 2010a) of the
CBD calls for: “7O per cent of the genetic diversity of crops including their wild
relatives and other socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, while
respecting, preserving and maintaining associated indigenous and local
knowledge” by 2020 in Target 9. Further, more effective CWR conservation is
specifically highlighted as a priority in Target 13 of the recently established CBD
Strategic Plan (CBD 2010b): “By 2020, the loss of genetic diversity of cultivated
plants and domestic farm animals in agricultural ecosystems and of wild relatives
is halted and strategies have been developed and implemented for safeguarding
the genetic diversity of other priority socio-economically valuable species as well as
8
selected wild species of plants and animals.” In addition, the first UN Millennium
Development Goals (www.un.org/millenniumgoals/) highlighted the need of
eradicating extreme poverty and hunger.
Therefore, both CWR and LR are critical components of PGRFA that can be
utilized (either directly or indirectly) for wealth creation, food security and
environmental sustainability in the 21st century; as such their conservation is
critical to human well-being.
9
1.3 Agrobiodiversity conservation at national and international levels
While the value of CWR and LR for food and livelihood security is widely
recognized, there is a lack of knowledge about the diversity that exists and
precisely how that diversity may be used for crop improvement. CWR and LR
inventories are lacking for most countries—without knowledge of how many
populations, crops or taxa exist and at what locations, there is no possibility to
plan for their systematic conservation. Furthermore, even for some of the most
important crops in terms of global or regional food security, there is a lack of
knowledge of the genetic relationships between taxa in the crop gene pool. On the
other hand, ex situ conserved diversity remains largely uncharacterized or
unevaluated. In addition, the lack of knowledge of how many traditional seed-
saved varieties remain extant as well as of their traditional cultivation practices
has been and remains a severe constraint in their conservation and utilization
(Maxted, 2006; Negri et al., 2009).
With the degradation and extinction of CWR and LR populations, not only is
unique and valuable genetic diversity being lost, but also the associated
indigenous cultivation and exploitation knowledge and the socio-economic and
environmental benefits associated with their continued conservation and
maintenance. There is therefore an urgent need to address the continued
maintenance and conservation of CWR and LR at global, regional, national and
local levels in order to maximize the availability of PGRFA for crop improvement
and to increase productivity and food security—particularly for the most
vulnerable farmers and rural people in developing countries.
This need has been encapsulated in a number of international conventions and
strategies, notably the FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) (www.planttreaty.org), the FAO Global Plan of
Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of PGRFA (Global Plan of
Action, www.globalplanofaction.org), the CBD (www.biodiv.org) and the Global
Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) (www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-
cutting/plant/). In 2002, the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD
established the 2010 Biodiversity Targets (CBD, 2002) which drew attention to the
importance of conserving the “genetic diversity of crops, livestock, and harvested
species of trees, fish and wildlife and other valuable species” and committed the
parties “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of
biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to
poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. Specifically in relation to
PGRFA, having failed to achieve previous targets, the GSPC (CBD, 2010a) calls
for: “7O per cent of the genetic diversity of crops including their wild relatives and
other socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, while respecting,
preserving and maintaining associated indigenous and local knowledge” by 2020
(Target 9). Further, more effective CWR conservation is specifically highlighted
as a priority in Target 13 of the recently established CBD Strategic Plan (CBD
2010b): “By 2020, the loss of genetic diversity of cultivated plants and domestic
farm animals in agricultural ecosystems and of wild relatives is halted and
strategies have been developed and implemented for safeguarding the genetic
diversity of other priority socio-economically valuable species as well as selected
10
wild species of plants and animals.” In support of the ITPGRFA and endorsed by
the COP to the CBD, the Global Plan of Action provides a “framework, guide and
catalyst for action at community, national, regional and international levels” and
“seeks to create an efficient system for the conservation and sustainable use of
plant genetic resources, through better cooperation, coordination and planning
and through the strengthening of capacities” (www.globalplanofaction.org).
The SoWPGR-2 (FAO, 2010a) notes that although the total number of ex situ
holdings has increased since the First SoW Report (FAO, 1998), CWR diversity is
still under-represented and further effort is required to mainstream on-farm
conservation of LR diversity. It also highlights the fact that relatively little
progress has been made in conserving wild PGRFA outside protected areas or in
developing sustainable management techniques for plants harvested from the
wild. The SoWPGR-2 also notes that ex situ conservation gaps are recognized and
that action needs to be taken to fill these gaps. Given that the raison d’etre for
agrobiodiversity conservation is sustainable use by farmers and breeders, it is
disappointing for the SoWPGR-2 to conclude that the number of plant breeders
has remained relatively constant, while at the same time levels of public sector
crop development have diminished and the private sector has focused on major
crops alone. It can be argued that long-term security of CWR and LR conservation
will pragmatically only be maintained if there is systematic use of the broad range
of CWR and LR diversity conserved. There is therefore a need to strengthen plant
breeding capacity and encourage greater pre-breeding initiatives that transfer
adaptive traits from what many breeders regard as exotic backgrounds to more
acceptable breeders’ material that avoid linkage drag of deleterious traits. One
contemporary challenge for the conservation community is to work more closely
with breeders to provide a more effective mechanism for access to genetic
diversity of interest; an initiative of this kind has recently started in Europe
(Maxted et al., 2012) and it is anticipated that the research will provide useful
results and recommendations for other regions and countries.
Common wild rice (Oryza rufipogon Griffin.) panicle found in Northern Laos during
an rice expedition trip in 2009 (photo: Bao-Rong Lu).
11
Considering the socio-economic importance of CWR and LR, it is perhaps
surprising that their conservation has not been more systematically addressed.
The historic paradigm is that CWR and LR diversity is a resource that is and will
always be readily available to breeders. Nonetheless, its erosion and extinction has
reached levels where serious social and economic problems will arise unless
threats are reduced and diversity secured as permanently as possible. To meet the
new 2020 GSPC targets, along with other relevant international, regional and
national strategies and legislation, a paradigm shift is required to systematically
address the effective conservation of CWR and LR diversity, while at the same
time promoting their enhanced but sustainable utilisation.
The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (SoWPGR-2) (FAO 2010a) reported a substantial increase in
interest and awareness of the value of CWR for crop improvement and the need to
conserve these species at national level. An outline Global Strategy for CWR
Conservation and Use has been drafted (Heywood et al. 2008), a new Specialist
Group on CWR has been recently established within IUCN/SSC (Dulloo and
Maxted 2008), and protocols for the in situ conservation of CWR have been
developed since the 1990s (see Gadgil et al. 1996, Maxted et al. 1997a, Tuxill and
Nabhan 1998, Zencirci et al. 1998, Vaughan 2001, Heywood and Dulloo 2005,
Stolton et al. 2006, Iriondo et al. 2008, Hunter and Heywood 2011, Iriondo et al.
2011). However, progress has been slower for systematic LR conservation which is
perhaps surprising given their relative ease of utilisation compared to CWR. The
conservation of CWR and LR is a complex goal, involving diverse disciplines: for
CWR it involves the PGRFA and nature conservation communities, and for LR it
involves PGRFA, breeders and farming communities.
12
Countries generally lack an adequate and reliable funding mechanism for the
development and implementation of national programmes for the conservation
and use of PGRFA (FAO 2010a). Nonetheless, of the 101 countries that provided
information for both the First Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (SoWPGR-1) and SoWPGR-2, FAO (2010a)
reported a slight increase in national PGRFA programmes from 53% in 1996 to 71%
in 2009.
FAO (2010a) also reported a significant increase in the number of CWR
inventories, with 28 countries reporting relevant activities compared to only 4
countries in 1996. However, these surveys are generally limited to single crops or
small groups of species, or to certain regions within the countries. Despite this
increase, no coordinated and systematic inventorying has been undertaken for
both CWR and LR and this is mainly due to: lack of financial and human resources,
deficient skills and knowledge, lack of (national) coordination, unclear
responsibilities, low national priority, among other factors (FAO 2010a).
Regarding the ex situ conservation of PGRFA, FAO (2010a) reported an increased
interest in collecting CWR, LR and neglected and under-utilized species. However,
the majority of ex situ accessions are from major food staples, such as wheat and
rice. On the other hand, many countries have reported an increase in the number
of in situ and on-farm conservation activities, though these are not always well
coordinated. The in situ conservation of PGRFA (in particular CWR) in wild
ecosystems still occurs mainly passively without active management in protected
areas (PA). On-farm management of genetic diversity has increasingly become
part of national programmes, and the number of on-farm management projects
carried out with the participation of local stakeholders has increased somewhat
(FAO 2010a). However, most countries still do not have national programmes for
in situ conservation of PGRFA. In fact, FAO (2010a) highlighted that in situ and ex
situ conservation is still very incipient and further efforts are needed.
13
Brazil: CWR and crop inventories of cucurbits, cotton, peanuts, rice, cassava,
maize and “pupunha”.
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
Japan: survey to determine what LR were cultivated (1984-2000).
Lao People’s Democratic Republic: survey of CWR and/or LR with the purpose of
ex situ conservation of rice, and other annual or perennial crops (e.g. maize,
cassava, sweet potato, sugarcane).
Sri Lanka: CWR inventories of rice, Piper, green gram/black gram (Vigna),
banana, Cinnamomum and can be found at
http://www.agridept.gov.lk/other_pages.php?heading=CWR.
NEAR EAST
Jordan: sixteen target crops gene pools of global or regional significance and their
wild relatives were studied and strategies for their conservation (2002-2005).
Pakistan: CWR of particular crops have been identified (e.g. wheat, barley, rice,
Sorghum, millet, cotton, mustard, kenaf, chickpea, pome fruits, tree nuts, etc.).
Uzbekistan: CWR of Allium, Malus, Juglans, Pistacia, Amygdalus, Hordeum.
Sources: FAO Country Reports (2010b), Hunter and Heywood (2011)
14
in the biotechnology industries are now allowing more precise transfer of genes,
even in the case of CWR from more distantly related species, further enhancing
the value of LR and CWR.
Tanksely and McCouch (1997) and Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007) argued that
breeders were not fully exploiting the potential of CWR. Historically, breeders
relied on searching for specific beneficial traits associated with particular CWR
taxa rather than searching more generally for beneficial genes, and they avoided
transfer into polyploid crops where transfer was more difficult (e.g., rice, sorghum
and sweet potato). The likely use of LR diversity is thought to be extensive but
precise quantification is limited because of the potential commercial sensitivity of
the information to competing breeding companies. The use of CWR diversity in
crop improvement programmes for 29 major crops has recently been reviewed by
Maxted and Kell (2009), who reported that for these crops, there are 234
references that report the identification of useful traits in 183 CWR taxa (Figure 1).
The review showed that the degree to which breeders use CWR species varies
between crops, with CWR use being particularly prominent in barley, cassava,
potato, rice, tomato and wheat improvement, rice and wheat being the two crops
for which CWR have been most widely used, both in terms of number of CWR taxa
used and successful attempts to introgress traits from the CWR to the crop. The
number of publications for the papers detailing the use of CWR in breeding has
increased gradually over time-presumably as a result of technological
developments for trait transfer-with 2% of citations recorded prior to 1970, 13% in
the 1970s, 15% in the 1980s, 32% in the 1990s and 38% after 1999. The most
widespread CWR use has been and remains in the development of disease and
pest resistance, with the references citing disease resistance objectives accounting
for 39%, pest and disease resistance 17%, abiotic stress 13%, yield increase 10%,
cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restorers 4%, quality improvers 11% and
husbandry improvement 6% of the reported inter-specific trait transfers. It can
also be seen from this review that since the year 2000 the number of attempts to
improve quality, husbandry and end-product commodities has increased
substantially. However, the exploitation of the potential diversity contained in
CWR species appears to be hit and miss as the approach by breeders to CWR use
has not been systematic or comprehensive; therefore, the vast majority of CWR
diversity remains untapped for utilization.
15
Figure 1. References to use of CWR
16
within its natural habitat or where it has developed its distinctive characteristics
(Maxted et al. 1997c). In situ conservation strategies have two distinct techniques:
genetic reserve and on-farm conservation. Genetic reserves are designated for
wild species (such as CWR) and are defined as “the location, management and
monitoring of genetic diversity in natural wild populations within defined areas
designated for active, long-term conservation” (Maxted et al. 1997b). On-farm
targets LR conservation and is defined as “the sustainable management of genetic
diversity of locally developed crop varieties (landraces), with associated wild and
weedy species or forms, by farmers within traditional agricultural, horticultural or
agri-silvicultural systems” (Maxted et al. 1997b). The precise combination of in
situ and ex situ techniques will vary according to the species being conserved,
resources available for conservation and the potential value and use of the species.
Historically, PGRFA have primarily been conserved using ex situ methods (e.g.,
see Frankel and Bennet, 1970; Frankel, 1973; Frankel and Hawkes, 1975; Brown et
al., 1989; Frankel et al., 1995; Guarino et al., 1995; Hawkes et al., 2000; Smith et al.,
2003) (Box 5). However, recent research has questioned whether LR diversity can
be effectively conserved ex situ due to the genetic bottleneck associated with
sampling and multiplication/regeneration in gene banks and the constantly and
relatively rapidly changing genetic diversity within populations (Negri and
Teranti, 2010), and has highlighted the fact that CWR are very poorly represented
in ex situ collections worldwide (Maxted and Kell, 2009), most attention having
been paid to maintaining obsolete cultivars, breeding lines, genetic stocks and LR.
It is also widely agreed since the inception of the CBD that in situ conservation
should be the primary conservation strategy, with ex situ employed as a backup,
because in contrast to ex situ conservation, in situ conservation promotes natural
gene exchange and continued evolution of LR and CWR populations (CBD, 1992;
FAO, 1996, 2001; Brush, 1999; Maxted et al., 1997a; Heywood and Dulloo, 2005;
Stolton et al., 2006; Negri et al. 2009).
17
conditions (wheat, flax, lentil, grass pea, chickpea, cowpea and faba beans) in
Georgia (Jorjadze and Berishvili, 2009).
Genetic reserve1 conservation involves the conservation of CWR in their
native habitats. It may be defined as “the location, management and monitoring of
genetic diversity in natural wild populations within defined areas designated for
active, long-term conservation” (Maxted et al., 1997c). Practically, this involves the
location, designation, management and monitoring of genetic diversity at a
particular location. The site is actively managed, even if that active management
only involves regular monitoring of the target taxa, and conservation is long term,
because significant resources will have been invested to establish the genetic
reserve (Maxted et al., 2008d). This technique is the most appropriate for the bulk
of CWR species, whether they possess orthodox or non-orthodox seeds.
On-farm conservation involves conserving LR within traditional farming
systems and has been practised by farmers for millennia. Each season the farmers
keep a proportion of harvested seed for re-sowing in the following year. Thus, the
LR is highly adapted to the local environment and is likely to contain locally
adapted alleles or gene complexes. On-farm conservation may be defined as: “the
sustainable management of genetic diversity of locally developed landraces with
associated wild and weedy species or forms by farmers within traditional
agriculture, horticulture or agri-silviculture systems” (Maxted et al., 1997c).
Home garden conservation – crops are grown as small populations and the
produce is used primarily for home consumption. Home garden conservation is a
variation on on-farm conservation and may be defined as: “the sustainable
management of genetic diversity of locally developed traditional crop varieties by
individuals in their back-yard” (Maxted et al., 1997c). Its focus is usually on
vegetables, medicinal plants and spices (e.g., tomatoes, peppers, coumarin, mint,
thyme, parsley, etc.). Orchard gardens, which are often expanded versions of
kitchen gardens, can be valuable reserves of genetic diversity of fruit and timber
trees, shrubs, pseudo-shrubs, such as banana and pawpaw, climbers and root and
tuber crops as well as the herbs.
Ex situ techniques
Ex situ conservation is the conservation of components of biological diversity
outside their natural habitats (CBD, 1992). The application of this strategy
involves the location, sampling, transfer and storage of samples of the target taxa
away from their native habitat (Maxted et al., 1997c). LR and CWR seeds can be
stored in gene banks or in field gene banks as living collections. Examples of
major ex situ collections include the International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Centre (CIMMYT) gene bank with more than 160,000 accessions (i.e., samples
collected at a specific location and time), the International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI) with the largest collection of rice genetic resources, and the Millennium
Seed Bank at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew with the largest collection of seed of
24,000 wild species. Important national/regional collections include: coffee in
Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Kenya, Madagascar and Tanzania; sesame in
Kenya; cassava in Malawi, Zambia and Tanzania, and sweet potato in Mauritius,
Zambia, Swaziland and Tanzania (FAO, 2010a).
18
Furthermore, integral to in situ management of PGRFA are a number of potential
positive socio-economic and environmental outcomes; these may include
improved diet and nutrition, increased self-sufficiency and livelihood security for
farmers and rural communities, maintenance of indigenous knowledge and local
cultural practices, low-input sustainable land management practices, and the
maintenance of ecosystem services—all factors that add weight to the need for
promoting, supporting and sustaining in situ management of PGRFA.
Of the two conservation strategies (in situ and ex situ), the highest proportion of
LR and CWR diversity is actively conserved ex situ; although the coverage is far
from systematic. It is difficult to quantify the amount of LR diversity held ex situ
because whether the material is LR is often not recorded. For LR there is also the
problem over whether nomenclatural or genetic distinction is used to identify
them; just because two farmers say they are growing different LR and give them
different names, are they really genetically different? We have better knowledge of
the ex situ conservation status of CWR, but most of this knowledge is based on
studies of European gene bank collections. The First SoW Report (FAO, 1998)
estimated that 4% of governmental, 14% of CGIAR and 6% of private gene bank
holdings were of wild species; however, these included both CWR and non-CWR
wild species. Dias and Gaiji (2005) estimated that approximately 4% of ex situ
holdings in European gene banks are of CWR (37,528 accessions of 2629 species in
613 genera out of a total of 925,000 accessions of 7950 species in 1280 genera). The
ratio of the number of accessions of cultivated species to wild species is striking,
with an average of 167 for each cultivated species and 14 for each wild species,
giving a ratio of 12:1, which is particularly surprising given that most diversity is
located in wild species (Maxted et al., 2008a). Later, Dias et al. (2012) calculated
that a total of around 9% of gene bank accessions held by European gene banks are
of wild origin and that these represent 7,279 species. This increase is most likely
due to improved information management in gene banks and an increase in the
number of gene banks providing data to the central European repository,
EURISCO (http://eurisco.ecpgr.org), rather than a significant increase in the
number of CWR samples being collected and stored.
There are few examples of on-farm conservation projects that have proven
sustainable in the longer term, but methodologies for the design, establishment,
management and monitoring of CWR in genetic reserves are available (see Gadgil
et al., 1996; Maxted et al., 1997b; Heywood and Dulloo, 2005; Stolton et al., 2006;
Iriondo et al., 2008); however, full practical implementation remains limited. As
noted by Meilleur and Hodgkin (2004), there are: “weak links between the ‘site-
selection and/or management-recommendations’ process and the ‘official-
protected-site and/or management-change-designation’ process”. In other words,
moving from the stage of identifying genetic reserve sites and making
management recommendations, to official site designation and practical
management remains a significant challenge. The lack of notable examples of the
‘CWR site selection to reserve establishment’ process may possibly be explained
by the inherent requirement to bring together the agricultural conservation
community who identify the priority CWR taxa and sites and the ecological
conservation community who actively manage the protected areas in which the
CWR genetic reserves would be established. However, there are some notable
19
examples of activities that have made a significant contribution to the process of
conserving CWR in situ; these include the conservation of:
• Wild emmer wheat (Triticum turgidum var. dicoccoides) in the Ammiad
reserve in the eastern Galilee, Israel (Anikster et al., 1997; Safriel et al.,
1997);
• A close, perennial wild relative of maize (Zea diploperennis) in the MAB
Sierra de Manantlán Biosphere Reserve endemic to Southwest Mexico
(UNESCO, 2007);
• Various crop and forest CWR in reserves established in Kaz Daĝ, Aegean
Region, Ceylanpinar of Southeast Turkey, and Amanos, Mersin in Turkey
(Firat and Tan, 1997; Tan, 1998; Tan and Tan, 2002);
• Forage Vicia and Lathyrus in Turkey (Maxted and Kell, 1998; Maxted et al.,
2003);
• Lathyrus grimesii in Nevada, USA (Hannan and Hellier, in Pavek et al.,
1999);
• Various cereal, forage and fruit trees in CWR reserves established in
Lebanon, Syria, Palestinian Territories and Jordan (Amri et al., 2008a, b);
• Grain CWR within the Erebuni Reserve near Yerevan, Armenia (Avagyan,
2008);
• Wild bean populations (Phaseolus spp.) in Costa Rica (Zoro Bi et al., 2003;
Baudoin et al., 2008);
• Phaseolus, Gossypium, Cucurbita, Zea and Lycopersicon in Latin America
(Debouck, 2001);
• Solanum jamesii, S. fendleri and other species in Pisac Cusco, Peru
(Bamberg in Pavek et al., 1999);
• Wild Coffea species in the Mascarene Islands (Dulloo et al., 1999);
• Allium columbianum, A. geyeri and A. fibrillum in Washington State, USA
(Hannan and Hellier, Pavek et al., 1999; Hellier, 2000);
• Carya floridana and C. myristiciformis in the southern States of the USA
(Grauke, Pavek et al., 1999);
• Capsicum annuum var. aviculare in Mexico (Tewskbury et al., 1999);
• Beta vulgaris, Brassica insularis, B. oleracea and Olea europaea in France
(Mitteau and Soupizet, 2000);
• Vitis rupestris, V. shuttleworthii, V. monticola in central–Southeast USA
(Pavek et al., 2003).
Although these can be cited as positive examples of in situ CWR conservation, in
many cases the sites identified may not be managed in the most appropriate
manner to conserve the genetic diversity of the populations as described by
Iriondo et al. (2008; 2012) and they therefore do not in themselves constitute the
desired global network of genetic reserves that is needed to systematically
conserve CWR genetic diversity.
20
The conservation of CWR and LR usually results from a combination of
conservation actions at the macro- and micro-levels. Macro-conservation deals
with the political, economic and strategic planning issues on habitat, species or
genetic diversity conservation and can be implemented at global, regional,
national and local levels. In other words, macro-conservation deals with the
development of strategic plans targeting the conservation of specific elements of
biodiversity, in this case of CWR and LR, but not its practical implementation.
Micro-conservation comprises the distinct, practical, conservation actions (which
make use of specific in situ and ex situ techniques) focused on individual habitats,
species or intra-specific genetic diversity in order to implement the strategies
developed at the macro-conservation level. As such the development and
application of National management plans for CWR and LR conservation can be
thought of as involving macro- and micro-conservation decision making and
practically involving a combination of in situ and ex situ techniques.
LEVEL OF
APPROACH STRATEGIC SCALE OF IMPLEMENTATION
REASONING
Global
MACRO‐CONSERVATION
Monographic
Economic ‐ Development
Strategic planning
Regional
Political
Policy
National
Floristic
Local
CONSERVATION CONSERVATION
STRATEGIES TECHNIQUES
Genetic reserves
MICRO‐CONSERVATION
In situ
On‐farm
Individual species, habitats
Seed storage
In vitro storage
DNA storage
Ex situ
Pollen storage
Field gene bank
Botanical garden
At the macro-conservation level, a first decision has to be made regarding the two
possible and distinct approaches on how to develop the conservation plan:
whether to adopt a monographic or a floristic approach. The monographic
approach focuses on priority crop gene pools and can be applied at different
geographic levels (global, regional or national). It is monographic because the
methodology is comprehensive for individual target taxa throughout their full
geographic range or its full range within a geographically defined unit such a
21
region or a country. for CWR examples and for LR examples). It aims to
systematically conserve the selected priority CWR or LR diversity via a network of
in situ genetic reserves or on-farm sites with backup in ex situ collections. The
floristic approach is taxa / crop comprehensive because it attempts to encompass
all CWR / LR that occur within a geographical unit (i.e. a region, country, sub-
national unit or sub-national region), regardless of the plant taxa / crops normal
range. The full geographic range of an individual taxon may or may not be
included, depending on whether it is endemic to the target country. It is commonly
associated with the development of National management plans for CWR and LR
Conservation.
Given the different intrinsic features that characterise CWR (wild species) and LR
(crops), the application of the monographic and floristic approaches are similar in
concept but may be slightly different in application depending on whether the
target is CWR or LR diversity. With regard to the use of the term floristic for LR
conservation, it is meant to imply the entire LR diversity found within a defined
geographic area (e.g. local, region, country, even continental), just like a botanical
flora encompasses the wild plant diversity found within a defined area. The
monographic and floristic approaches, for both CWR and LR, may be seen as
strategic in that they are likely to be implemented by national or global
conservation agencies or institutions, and should not be seen as alternative but
rather as a holistic matrix to maximize overall CWR or LR diversity conservation.
22
occurrence and distribution of the target species within in the region, as well as on
information provided by the national programme staff. A total of 17 collecting
missions were undertaken in Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Tanzania,
Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe between April 1997 and April 1998. Passport data
and herbarium specimens were collected for each accession during the collecting
missions. Threats to the wild rice species were assessed as genetic erosion
indicators. Seed fertility, maturity and production were also registered.
Source: Kiambi et al. (2005)
23
1995 and 1999, IRRI staff trained more than 670 people in 48 training courses in 14
countries and at IRRI headquarters in the Philippines. The training encompassed
field collection and conservation, characterization, wild rice species, data
management and documentation, gene bank management, seed health, analysis of
socioeconomic data, and isozyme and molecular analysis of germplasm.
Source: IRRI (2000)
At national level: Races of maize in Mexico
The authors studied 32 races of maize in Mexico using morphological, cytological,
genetic and agronomic characteristics and geographical distribution.
Source: Wellausen et al. (1952)
24
considered, several documents were used for validation [the complete list of
agricultural, vegetables, fruits and ornamental species produced by the
Portuguese National Catalogue of Varieties (DGPC 2003), the Temperate and
Boreal Forest Resources Assessment 2000 (TBFRA-2000) (UNECE/FAO 2000) for
the forestry crops; a priority list of ornamental genera representing the
recommendations from the Herbaceous Ornamental Crop Germplasm Committee
(HOCGC) (OPGC 2002), the report by Pimenta (2004) on an updated list of
ornamental plant species grown in Portugal]. Twenty‐two priority species for
conservation were identified based on eight criteria (native status, economic
value, threatened status, in situ and ex situ conservation status, global and
national distribution, and legislation) and combining different prioritization
schemes (Magos Brehm et al. 2010). An ecogeographic survey, gap analysis, and
species distribution modelling with current and future climate data were
undertaken for target species. Additionally, a genetic diversity analysis for a
subset of priority species was carried out. The results obtained with these different
methodologies were combined in order to provide in situ and ex situ conservation
recommendations for these wild plant resources.
Source: Magos Brehm (2008), Magos Brehm et al. (2008a, 2010)
Beta macrocarpa Guss, a wild relative of beet (B. vulgaris L.) in Quinta de
Marim (Ria Formosa Natural Park, Portugal) (photo: Maria Cristina Duarte).
26
1.6 Global agrobiodiversity conservation
A global approach aims at the systematic conservation of CWR and LR diversity
as a means of maintaining global food security and meeting consumer choice. At
global level, the monographic approach (targeting specific crops and crop gene
pools) has to be used since there is no global Flora or list of CWR taxa, or checklist
of global LR diversity. The requirement for a global approach is especially
important because CWR and LR diversity, like plant diversity in general, is not
evenly spread across the globe, but is concentrated into botanical (Mittermeier et
al. 1999, Myers et al. 2000) and crop diversity hotspots (Vavilov 1926, Hawkes
1983), and maintaining food security requires a global overview if it is to be
successful. Conservation in these highly diverse hotspots is thus necessarily
independent of national political borders and needs to be coordinated if it is to be
effective.
In response to this challenge, the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) has called for the development of a network of
in situ conservation areas to conserve CWR diversity (Activity 4 of the Global
Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture – FAO 1996). Within this context, the CGRFA
commissioned a thematic background study on ‘the establishment of a global
network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs’
(Maxted and Kell 2009) to support the preparation of the SoWPGR-2 and as a
basis for updating the Global Plan of Action. The objective of this study was to
provide sufficient baseline information for planning the future work of the
Commission in the establishment and monitoring of a network of in situ
conservation areas for CWR using the gap analysis methodology developed by
Maxted et al. (2008c). Specifically, the study aimed to:
Identify which important areas for CWR are already part of existing
protected areas, in particular in the centres of origin or diversification;
Pinpoint existing conservation gaps in order to assess which important
areas for CWR are yet to be protected within and outside existing protected
areas;
Provide the foundations for a long‐term and cost‐effective plan for CWR
conservation.
The crops included in this background study were, firstly, those that have
been identified as being of major importance for food security in one or more
sub‐regions of the world (FAO 1998) and that are listed in Annex I of the ITPGRFA
(FAO 2001), which is a list of PGRFA established according to criteria of food
security and country interdependence. These are: finger millet (Eleusine
coracana), barley (Hordeum vulgare), sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas), cassava
(Manihot esculenta), banana/plantain (Musa acuminata), rice (Oryza sativa),
pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), potato (Solanum tuberosum), sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor), wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays). Each of these
crops supplies more than 5% of the plant‐derived energy intake in one or more
sub‐regions of the world (FAO 1998). Secondly, three further crops that are listed
in Annex I of the ITPGRFA were also considered to be priority crops, because they
are regionally important, and data were readily available—cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata), faba bean (Vicia faba) and garden pea (Pisum sativum). These
27
priority crops represented different crop groups (cereals, food legumes, roots and
tubers), with different breeding systems (cross-pollinating, self-pollinating,
clonally propagated), as well as crops of temperate and tropical origin (Maxted
and Kell 2009).
The authors made preliminary recommendations for the establishment of a global
network of in situ conservation areas for the highest priority CWR species1 from
the 12 crop gene pools for which distribution data were available for the study.
Although the locations of priority species were selected for only 12 crop gene
pools they were located across the globe, primarily in the centres of crop diversity
identified by Vavilov (1926), which remain the hotspots of crop and CWR diversity
today. Note the eight Vavilov Centres of origin / diversity, indicated by blue
enclosed lines, are likely to contain further priority site for other crop gene pools).
The approach undertaken by the authors, a monographic approach at global level,
included:
A review of the uses of each crop and its socio‐economic importance;
Discussion of taxonomic issues, listing of the taxa in the crop gene pool and
their degree of genetic and/or taxonomic relatedness;
Notes on the distribution of the crop and its wild relatives, locating
centre(s) of diversity;
A review of crop breeding efforts that have utilized wild relatives;
Identification of the highest priority taxa for immediate inclusion in the
CWR genetic reserve network, with supporting justification;
Identification of the highest priority sites for immediate inclusion in the
CWR genetic reserve network, with supporting justification;
Recommended conservation actions and requirements for further research.
The systematic in situ conservation of LR is far from being initiated either
at the global or national level, and global or national networks of on-farm sites for
LR conservation are yet to be implemented. In fact, Veteläinen et al. (2009b)
highlighted the difficulty of systematically conserving all LR diversity on-farm due
to the high numbers of existing LR but stressed that a coherent global network of
on-farm conservation should be established in order to actively conserve the
highest priority LR globally. A similar point could equally be made nationally for
each individual country’s priority crops.
The point should be stressed that although there is a strong logic for an
intergovernmental institution on biodiversity for food security, in cooperation
with international partners from environment and agriculture leading the required
research and the establishment of global CWR and LR networks, national agencies
do have a role. There is an onus on each country to conserve its CWR and LR
diversity in situ and this will require the establishment of national networks of
genetic reserves and on-farm sites. Where there is coincidence between global and
national priorities, the national sites may also contribute to the global network.
1
Primary and secondary wild relatives and/or CWR which are known to be threatened or have limited distributions.
28
Figure 3. Global priority genetic reserve locations for CWR of 12 food crops 2
2
Maxted and Kell (2009)
30
area, which may be a sub-national area such as an administrative unit or protected
area, a whole country, a supra-national region, or even the whole world. A
monographic approach on the other hand is restricted to certain crop gene pools,
but like the floristic approach may be carried out at any geographical scale.
Although both approaches may be carried out at any geographic scale, the floristic
approach is most likely to be national in scope, while the monographic approach is
more likely to be global in scope because it involves the development of a
conservation strategy for a crop gene pool and therefore would ideally encompass
all the areas of the world in which the target taxa are native (in the case of CWR)
or where they are being cultivated (in the case of LR).
Both approaches will ultimately conclude with the systematic conservation of
priority CWR and LR diversity via a network of in situ conservation and on-farm
conservation sites, with backup in ex situ collections. Whether a floristic or
monographic approach is taken is likely to depend on: a) the quantity and quality
of existing data, b) the resources available to prepare the conservation strategy,
and c) the scope of the parent organization undertaking the conservation; for
example, an international cereal research institute is likely to focus
monographically on cereal crops, while a national biodiversity institute is likely to
adopt a more floristic approach. It is worth noting that if the goal is to maximize
CWR and LR diversity it is likely that both approaches need to be combined
(National Strategies and crop gene pool strategies for the highest priority crops).
Option 2 – Local, national, regional or global geographic scales
National management plans for conservation of CWRs and LRs should ideally be
complementary, depending on the geographical units included, even though the
individual geographic scale is likely to be dictated by the remit of the parent
organization undertaking the conservation. There is a need to develop interacting
CWR/LR conservation strategies, such that one geographic level strategy is not
seen in isolation, but contributes to the other levels. For example, a country’s
national CWR and LR management plans should link with local, regional and
ultimately the global conservation strategy such that nationally designated on-
farm and genetic reserve sites become part of a combined network of sites
overseen at national level but managed at local level (individual genetic reserves),
as well as part of a regional and global network overseen by the appropriate
regional and global agencies. Therefore, it is not a choice between geographic
scales, but the real choice is whether or not to ensure complementarity in
approach between interacting CWR/LR management plans to ensure they form a
series of local, national, regional and global in situ CWR/LR conservation sites. In
practice, however, it should be acknowledged that in implementing such a
complementary geographic approach is feasible for systematic CWR conservation
now but is likely to be a longer term option for LR conservation if for no other
reason than the extent of knowledge available on LR diversity.
Option 3 – Centralized or participatory conservation
It is difficult to precisely categorize the contribution of local communities and
farmers versus conservationists to address global food security. While an overview
is required to identify CWR and LR diversity hotspots and implement genetic
reserve or on-farm conservation in a network that maximizes the conserved CWR
and LR diversity for the benefit of all humanity, it is equally important to
recognize that on-farm or genetic reserve conservation is impossible without local
community or farmer approval and action. It is perhaps inevitable that targeted
global conservation involves a top-down approach but local communities have
been managing, manipulating and exploiting CWR and LR diversity for millennia
and so maintaining a complementary bottom-up approach is equally important.
Therefore, just as CWR/LR conservation at local, national, regional and global
scales interact to ensure effective complementary conservation, both centralized
and participatory approaches to conservation also ensure effective
complementary conservation.
Option 4 – On-farm conservation or conservation of traditional farming systems
The growing literature associated with LR conservation highlights a distinction in
focus between at least two distinct, but associated, conservation activities. The
distinction between the two is based on whether the focus is the conservation of
genetic diversity within a particular farming system or the conservation of the
traditional farming system itself, irrespective of what happens to the genetic
diversity of LR material within that system (Maxted et al. 2002). These two
variants of LR conservation are obviously interrelated, may often be
complementary and may in certain cases be seen as one, but in other instances
this may not be the case. For example, the introduction of a certain percentage of
modern cultivars to a traditional farming system may sustain the system at that
location, but could lead to gene replacement or displacement and therefore
genetic erosion of the original localized LR material. The choice between the two
is dependent on whether the parent organization undertaking the conservation
wishes to conserve specific but dynamic LR or the system itself that maintains the
agro-environment in which the native LR can continue to evolve.
Option 5 – Farmer or conservationist based in situ conservation
At first it might be thought that although farmers are key players in on-farm
conservation of LR, they play a minimal role in CWR conservation. However,
experience from the limited number of projects that have established genetic
reserves (e.g., Firat and Tan 1997, Hunter and Heywood 2011) has shown that even
where genetic reserves are established in association with existing protected
areas, farmers are commonly involved. The reason being many CWR are found in
pre-climax vegetation so population conservation requires controlled grazing or
cutting. Therefore, even when undertaking genetic reserve CWR conservation, it
commonly involves conservationists working with farmers.
It is more obvious that farmers and conservationists will need to work together to
conserve LR diversity; however, it should be recognized that occasionally the LR
conservation may be in conflict with the development aspirations of the local
community, partially freezing the dynamic nature of LR diversity. Although the
conservationist should never try to restrict or deny these aspirations, the
conservationist may be able to promote LR diversity maintenance within the on-
farm system by facilitating some form of Participatory Plant Breeding or
Participatory Varietal Selection, which may vary from simply aiding farmer
selection to full-blown crossing of lines and LR to generate segregating diversity
for selection and production of improved breeders’ lines (e.g., see Friis-Hansen
and Sthapit 2000). Experience from past projects that have promoted on-farm
conservation of LR has also shown that the conservationist can have a key role in
helping farmers develop alternative niche markets for the LR, raising the value of
the resource and so sustain LR maintenance (Heinonen and Veteläinen 2009,
Nikolaou and Maxted 2009, Martin et al. 2009, Veteläinen et al. 2009b).
Option 6 – Status quo or legislative protection
To promote sustainable in situ CWR/LR conservation there is a need to encourage
and facilitate stronger legislative protection of sites (i.e. genetic reserve or on-
farm) designated for conservation. Experience from ecosystem and wild species
conservation has repeatedly shown that the establishment of protected areas
requires significant investment of resources and once established legislative
protection is required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the conservation
investment. This protection is equally applicable for sites designated as genetic
reserves or on-farm sites where the status quo without specific protection is
unviable. This is particularly important for CWR hotspots/sites designated in
Vavilov Centres of Origin, all of which are located in developing countries, which
are likely to contain the highest proportion of unique CWR and LR diversity that
we know is threatened and must be conserved if we are to seriously address global
food security.
Option 7 – In situ or ex situ conservation
In situ and ex situ conservation should not be viewed as alternatives or in
opposition to one another but rather should be practised as complementary
approaches. The adoption of this holistic approach requires the conservationist to
look at the characteristics and needs of the CWR or LR being conserved and then
assess which combination of techniques offers the most appropriate option to
maintain genetic diversity. Hawkes et al. (2000) suggested that to formulate the
conservation strategy, the conservationist may also need to address not only
genetic questions but also the practical and political ones:
• What are the species’ storage characteristics?
• What do we know about the species’ breeding system?
• Do we want to store the germplasm in the short, medium or long term?
• Where the germplasm is located and how accessible is it/does it need to be?
• Are there legal issues relating to access?
• How good is the infrastructure of the gene bank?
• What back-up is necessary/desirable?
• How might the resource be best exploited?
Given answers to these questions, the appropriate combination of techniques to
conserve the CWR or LR can then be applied in a pragmatic and balanced manner.
Option 8 – Conservation or conservation linked to use
Historically, there have been two camps of thought in biodiversity conservation—
those who see conservation as an end in its self (e.g., see McNeely and Guruswamy
1998) and those who believe there should be a direct and intimate link between
conservation and use (humans conserve diversity because they wish to exploit it)
(Maxted et al. 1997c). This utilitarian concept is fundamental to PGRFA
conservation where the goal is to ensure that the maximum possible genetic
diversity of CWR or LR diversity is maintained and available for potential
utilization.
Source: Maxted et al. (2012)
1.8 Local agrobiodiversity conservation
National management plans for CWR and LR conservation result in the systematic
representation of a nation’s CWR or LR diversity in a network of in situ
conservation or on-farm sites and, as a back-up measure, ex situ storage of
genetically representative population samples in national and/or local gene
banks. The implementation of the National plans at local level means that specific
decisions regarding in situ and ex situ conservation actions and techniques need
to be implemented locally and these will involve individual protected area/farmer
or gene bank manager actively promoting CWR/LR conservation within areas or
gene banks that they manage. A systematic, clear and constant dialogue and
coordination between the developers of the National management plans, national
agencies and local organisations (NGOs, farmers organisations, nature reserve
managers, etc.), is thus fundamental. Although ideal locations for CWR genetic
reserves or LR on-farm sites may have been identified at national level, there is an
obvious need to confirm on-site that not only the desired CWR/LR diversity is
actually present at the site, but also that there are enough economic and social
conditions to maintain and actively conserve them or that those conditions can be
created.
The location and establishment of specific CWR in situ genetic reserves within the
existing national network of PAs is an ideal way forward given possible financial
constraints and the significant additional costs associated with the creation of new
PAs for CWR conservation. However the latter should not be excluded from
consideration, especially in countries with a limited existing PA network.
Determination of the actual number of specific genetic reserves will be directed by
science but will ultimately be pragmatic as it will be dictated by the financial
resources available for in situ conservation as well as governmental and regional
will. The practical implementation of the in situ genetic reserves within or outside
existing PAs should be addressed at policy level and a strong commitment should
be made. The National management plans for CWR and LR Conservation should
thus be integrated and linked to the GSPC (through the GSPC national focal
point), the ITPGRFA, the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans
(NBSAPs)―the principal instruments for implementing the CBD at national level
(http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/)―and to the National Plant Conservation Strategies,
when existing. Whether CWR are conserved in situ within PAs or outside of them,
it is advisable that the sites have some form of legal protection to help prevent
sudden threats to conserved populations. On the other hand, local communities
living within the target sites where genetic reserves are to be implemented should
be actively involved so a holistic and thus efficient approach to conservation of
CWR is implemented. Awareness of National management plans for CWR and LR
conservation should be raised among the different stakeholders. These can take
the form of local community conservation (training) workshops. Agreements with
private owners (e.g. tax incentives) could be made, not only to ensure CWR are
properly managed but also to recognise the local communities’ role in conserving
such a valuable resource.
The Resource book is designed primarily for use by developing countries with
limited resources and knowledge on their CWR and LR diversity and how to
conserve it. The different groups of users may include agencies responsible for
planning and implementing national plans, such as the national agricultural or
environmental agencies; NGOs (e.g. farmers’ organizations), local institutions
(e.g. gene banks, universities, research institutes), and individual scientists.
Section A Section B
Sub‐sections:
e.g. National inventory
• Current status
• Overview of the methodology
• Examples and applied use
• List of rteferences used to compile the text
• Additional materials and resources
The first decision the user needs to make regarding the target species is
whether the user wants to develop a national management plan for conservation of
CWRs or LRs, or for both.
From there, the Resource book is divided into two main sections: section A for
CWR and section B for LR.
Each of these main sections is then divided into sub-sections which are related to
the different steps needed to develop a national management plan for the target
groups (e.g. National CWR checklist and inventory).
Pyrus salicifolia Pall., a wild relative of pear (P. pyraster Burgsd.), in Naxcıvan,
Azerbaijan. This species grows in very dry and rocky areas; in some places the
seeds of P. salicifolia are used to obtain the rootstock for local varieties of pears
(photo: Mirza Musayev).
3
Ford‐Lloyd (2006)
4
Maxted and Guarino (2006)
Habitat of Beta macrocarpa Guss (a wild relative of beet, B. vulgaris L.) in Ria
Formosa (Portugal), negatively affected by short and long term threats. Short-term
threats include changes in the hidrological regime and the sediments dynamics
associated with it, as well as habitat destruction caused by tourism infrastructure,
leisure and recreational sailing. Long-term threats include sea level rise and
intense and long storms which may cause the disruption and destruction of the
barrier islands of the lagoon system where the habitat occurs (photo: Maria
Cristina Duarte).
5
See Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007) and Maxted and Kell (2009) for reviews.
national network and provide an opportunity to monitor and assess short and long
term changes in CWR diversity. This would help in addressing the CBD Strategic
Plan6. Also, more specifically, the decision X/2 of the COP 10 (Nagoya, Japan,
October 2010), to facilitate the assessment of progress towards the 2020 targets,
“the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals
and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally
valuable species” have been recognised as important elements of biodiversity to
maintain “and [by 2020] strategies have been developed and implemented for
minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity“. A network
of national CWR in situ CWR conservation sites would provide a unique
opportunity to assess and meet this CBD 2020 target.
6
CBD (2010b)
Stedman‐Edwards P (2000) “Main findings and conclusions of the Root Causes
project.” In Wood A, Stedman‐Edwards P and Mang J (Eds) The Root Causes of
Biodiversity Loss. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, pp. 58‐79.
WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre) (1992) Global Biodiversity:
Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman and Hall, London.
Given the CWR diversity present, the available data, the financial and human
resources allocated to conservation, as well as the different levels of commitment
by national agencies and governments, the formulation and implementation of a
National management plan for CWR conservation will differ from country to
country. Nevertheless, there are likely to be common elements in the development
of a national plan of this kind that comprise a series of steps aiming at successful
conservation of CWR diversity. These steps are:
(i) Preparation of a national CWR checklist (list of CWR taxa) and inventory7
(list of CWR taxa with ancillary information): prepare a national inventory of
the country’s CWR diversity (floristic approach), or alternatively, an
inventory of CWR in priority crop gene pools found within a country
(monographic approach).
(ii) Prioritization of national CWR: prioritise the national CWR inventory to
focus conservation resources on the most important taxa; typically, species
will be prioritized on the basis of the food security and economic importance
of the related crop, the degree of relationship of the wild relative to the crop,
and relative level of threat.
(iii) Ecogeographic diversity analysis of priority CWR: collate and analyse the
available geographic, ecological and taxonomic data for priority CWR.
(iv) Genetic diversity analysis of priority CWR: collate genetic data for priority
CWR or, if unavailable, carry out novel genetic analysis.
(v) Threat assessment of priority CWR: identify threats that affect priority CWR
diversity, be aware of previous threat assessment and undertake novel threat
assessment for individual species that have not previously been assessed or
their assessments are out of date due to the availability of new data.
(vi) Gap analysis: identify in situ and ex situ conservation gaps.
(vii) Formulation of the National management plan: establish and implement in
situ and ex situ conservation goals and actions.
(viii) Monitoring of conservation status: ensure that the conservation actions are
maintaining target CWR diversity, either by monitoring in situ CWR
conservation sites, and possibly changing the population management if
7
Note: in this document we distinguish between a checklist and an inventory; checklist is used for the
list of CWR names alone and inventory for when more meaningful data has been added to the initial
checklist. We also distinguish between a full inventory (all CWR species) and a partial or prioritised
inventory (subset of CWR species).
diversity is decreasing, and monitoring if in situ diversity has changing
sufficiently to warrant further ex situ sampling.
(ix) Promotion of the use of CWR: make available characterisation and
evaluation data to the potential user community to facilitate its sustainable
utilisation.
The conclusion of this process is the National management plan for CWR
conservation which identifies key sites for in situ conservation of CWR and
diversity under-represented in ex situ collections. The National management plan
should include provisions for the utilization of conserved CWR diversity by plant
breeders, researchers and other potential users.
In situ actions
Network of CWR National CWR
genetic reserves Ex situ actions conservation
Implementation of CWR strategy
conservation goals
Systematic ex situ
CWR conservation
UTILISATION
Figure 5. Model for the development of a National management plan for CWR conservation
We need to know what exists, and where, to determine how we can conserve and
use it effectively. Plant checklists and inventories provide the baseline data
critical for biodiversity assessment and monitoring, as required by the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD, 1992), the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation (GSPC) (CBD, 2010a), the European Strategy for Plant Conservation
(ESPC) (Plantlife International and Council of Europe, 2008) and the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) (FAO,
2001). CWR checklists and inventories provide the essential foundations for the
formulation of strategies for in situ and ex situ conservation and on the species’
current and potential uses as novel crops or gene donors. Further, checklists and
inventories provide the data needed for integrating CWR into existing
conservation initiatives and a means of organising information in a logical and
retrievable way, preventing duplication of effort when planning conservation.
They provide policy makers, conservation practitioners, plant breeders and other
user groups with a view of CWR species’ distributions and a means of prioritizing
conservation activities. CWR checklists and inventories also provide a basis for
monitoring biodiversity change internationally, by linking CWR information with
information on habitats, policy and legislation and climate change. They also
serve to highlight the breadth of CWR diversity available in the target area, which
may include important resources for CWR conservation and use in other parts of
the world.
There are numerous publications on inter- and intra-crop diversity, both at a
global and national level, but the study and report of the wild component of
PGRFA has been largely neglected, but in recent years the situation is improving.
The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture reported a substantial increase in the number of CWR national
inventories with 28 countries reporting relevant activities compared to only 4
countries in 1996. A few of these inventories comprise the entire CWR national
diversity (e.g. Portugal8, United Kingdom9) but most of them are limited to single
crop gene pools or small groups of species, or to certain regions within the
8
Magos Brehm et al. (2008)
9
Maxted et al. (2007)
countries. Despite this increase in the number of CWR national inventories, the
majority of countries still lack a coordinated and systematic inventory of their
CWR and this is mainly due to lack of financial and human resources, deficient
skills and knowledge, lack of coordination, unclear responsibilities and low
national priority, among other factors10.
The preparation of a CWR national inventory can be seen as a six stage process:
(i) Determine the geographical scope (if not national), (ii) Produce a digitised list
of national crop species, (iii) Produce a digitised list of national flora, (iv) Match
the crop genera against the floristic checklist and generate the checklist, (v)
Prioritise the checklist on those CWR that are to be actively conserved and add
extra information on each prioritised CWR to generate the inventory, and (vi)
Make the inventory available to users. These steps constitute the general
methodology, which is illustrated in
and described further below. The importance of creating an inventory of CWR at
national instead of regional within a country level should be emphasized, because
it provides the best foundation for developing a National management plan for
CWR conservation. However, this approach is not always an option due to
resource limitation at the time available to develop such a plan.
10
FAO (2009)
DETERMINE THE
GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE
(whole country or region)
NO YES
Neighbouring country
Flora/checklist? DIGITISED FLORISTIC
CHECKLIST
YES
NO
DIGITIZED MATCHING
Expert‐based approach + national (FLORA AGAINST CROPS)
and international statistics +
germplasm / herbaria collections
11
Region is defined here as comprising different countries (e.g. Sub‐Saharan Africa, Mediterranean region)
rather than a sub‐unit within a country.
12
The sole use of germplasm/herbaria survey to create a CWR checklist can be misleading as some taxa might
not be represented in these collections; nevertheless it could form the basis for the checklist.
possible; the wild species included make the national CWR checklist. This route is a
more subjective and less comprehensive approach as some crops and CWR might
be missed but it is pragmatic if there is no alternative.
See the ‘Additional materials and resources’ for concrete references under each key
source.
13
CWR are those taxa found in the same genus as a crop because they are, by definition, taxonomically closest to
that crop (Maxted et al., 2006).
14
If either the Flora/checklist or the list of crops is not digitised, it is advisable to digitise them and proceed with
the digital matching.
or CWR inventory will be discussed in the section (see A.4. Setting CWR
conservation priorities).
As mentioned above, the distinction between a CWR checklist and a CWR
inventory is based on additional information being added to the CWR name. By
adding further and relevant information to each CWR the checklist becomes
significantly more useful as the inventory. Additional information that may include
in an inventory is:
Scientific name of the related crop
Economic value of related crop
Crop gene pool level/taxon group level15
Uses/potential uses of the taxon as a gene donor
Taxon description
Critical taxonomic notes
Synonyms
Vernacular names
Plant life-form16
Chromosome number
Ecology and habitat
Flowering time
Economic value of related crop
Ethnobotanical Direct uses (i.e., not as a gene donor)
Global and national distribution
Threat category
Ex situ and in situ conservation status
Legislation applied
Users of the resource book are encouraged where possible to use existing data
recording standards, i.e. use where possible TDWG standards
(http://www.tdwg.org/standards/), and specifically in relation to CWR (see
http://pgrsecure.org/; http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/;
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/).
15
See A.1. Introduction for definitions and explanations.
16
The Raunkiær’s classification system of main plant life‐forms (Raunkiær 1934) includes: phanerophytes
(normally woody perennials with resting buds more than 25 cms above soil level), chamaephytes (buds on
persistent shoots near the ground, woody plants with perennating buds borne no more than 25 cms above soil
surface), hemicryptophytes (buds at the soil surface), cryptophytes (below ground or under water, with resting
buds lying either beneath the surface of the ground as a rhizome, bulb, corm, etc., or a resting bud submerged
under water; they are divided into: geophytes – resting in dry ground, helophytes – resting in marshy ground,
and hydrophytes – resting by being submerged under water), therophytes (annual plants which survive the
unfavourable season in the form of seeds and complete their life‐cycle during favourable seasons).
A.3.3. Examples and applied use
Box 11. Global inventory of priority CWR
Recently, within the context of the ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Collecting,
Protecting and Preparing Crop Wild Relatives’ project led by the Global Crop Diversity
Trust and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and sponsored by the Norwegian Government, a
web-enabled global priority inventory of CWR taxa was created
(http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/). The inventory contains background
information on 173 food and agricultural crop genepools and 1,667 priority CWR taxa
from 37 families, 109 genera, 1392 species and 299 sub-specific taxa. It is referred to as
the Harlan and de Wet Global Priority CWR Checklist to acknowledge the pioneering
work of Harlan and de Wet (1971) in first proposing the Gene Pool (GP) concept to
explain the relative value of species in their potential as gene donors for crop
improvement. The taxa included were deemed priority CWRs as defined by their
membership in GP1b or GP2, or Taxon Groups (TG) 1b, 2 or 3. There are also a limited
number of GP3 and TG4 taxa included if they have previously been shown to be useful in
breeding. The Gene Pool concept designated the crop itself as GP1a, while GP1b are the
wild or weedy forms of the crop that cross easily with it. GP2 are secondary wild relatives
(less closely related species from which gene transfer to the crop is possible but difficult
using conventional breeding techniques), and GP3 are tertiary wild relatives (species
from which gene transfer to the crop is impossible, or if possible, requires more advanced
techniques, such as embryo rescue, somatic fusion or genetic engineering). Taxa are
organised by genera in alphabetical order and according to gene pool or taxon group
concepts, and for each crop complex the following information is available: GP or TG
concept source citation, Latin and common name, common synonyms, common
vernacular names, country geographic distribution, previous or potential reported use in
breeding, other uses, ex situ storage behaviour, and main herbaria with representative
specimens. The inventory will facilitate global and national conservation planning by for
the first time having a pre-existing prioritizing list of priority taxa available for the major
and minor crops of the world.
Source: Vincent et al. (2012)
Box 12. Using a regional CWR inventory to extract a national CWR checklist
A regional inventory of CWR may be filtered for a specific country, hence extracting the
national list of CWR. At present the only regional inventory of CWR is the Crop Wild
Relative Catalogue for Europe and the Mediterranean, so currently this approach has
only been taken within this region. This approach was successfully implemented in
Portugal and a number of other countries. See Box 8 Examples of the floristic approach to
cwr conservation (Floristic approach at national level: Inventory of Portuguese CWR).
Source: Kell et al. (2005) and Magos Brehm et al. (2008a)
Box 13. Using a regional botanical checklist to extract a regional CWR checklist
In order to create the CWR Catalogue for Europe and the Mediterranean, four major
sources of information were utilized: the Mansfeld’s Database of Agricultural and
Horticultural Crops (Hanelt and IPK 2001, IPK 2003) for cultivated plants, Schultze-
Motel (1966) for forestry genera, the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
(Kwakkenbos, pers. comm. 2004) for ornamental genera and the Medicinal and Aromatic
Plant Resources of the World Database (MAPROW) (Schippmann, pers. comm. 2004).
The genera of crops were identified in these four references and matched with the taxa
for these genera found within the Euro+Med PlantBase (version January 2005)
(http://www.euromed.org.uk).
Source: Kell et al. (2005)
Box 14. Using botanical checklist and agricultural statistics to create a CWR
inventory
Examples of manual matching to generating a CWR National Inventory are limited and
none have thus far been formally published but the grey literature yields two examples
where this has been achieved for Bhutan (Tamang 2003) and the Seychelles (Antoine
2003). Both followed the same basic methodology, as follows:
1. Use national agricultural statistics to produce a list of crops grown in the country.
2. Generate a list of national crop generic names.
3. Review national Flora to identify taxa found in same genus as the crop to build CWR
list.
4. Define the criteria for prioritising the national CWR checklist, agreed in collaboration
with national stakeholders. In Bhutan, the prioritisation criteria selected were: national
importance of crops (human food, animal food, industrial and ornamental), relative
threat of genetic erosion, and already included in national legislation; in the
Seychelles they were: national importance of crops (human food, animal food,
industrial and ornamental), relative threat of genetic erosion, rarity, native status,
existing priorities of national conservation agency, potential for use in crop
improvement, biological and cultural importance, and ethical and aesthetic
considerations.
5. Apply these criteria to the national CWR checklist to produce a priority list. In Bhutan
this generated a priority target list of 230 CWR species and in the Seychelles a priority
target list of 139 CWR species.
6. Write Conservation Action Plans for each priority CWR species in collaboration with
the lead organisations in the country responsible for its implementation; the Plans
included:
a. Assessment of current in situ / ex situ conservation activities for the priority CWR,
b. Current monitoring activities,
c. Assessment of current threats to priority taxa,
d. Assessment of current and potential exploitation of priority taxa,
e. Gap analysis of priority taxa,
f. Immediate and future conservation priorities,
g. Research priorities.
Subsequently, in both cases the National CWR Inventories and Conservation Action
Plans have been used by the national conservation authorities to promote CWR
conservation and use. Source: Antoine (2004) and Tamang (2004)
Box 15. Creating a national plant checklist using web-based resources
A plant diversity inventory was successfully compiled for Angola from exclusively free
web-based resources. These included on-line checklists (World Checklist of Selected
Plant Families, Kew), nomenclatural databases (International Plant Names Index),
general taxon/specimen databases (African Plants Initiative, Missouri Botanical Garden
TROPICOS, GBIF) and herbaria on-line databases such as that of Royal Botanic Gardens,
Kew. The project involved a 1 year full time researcher and 30 collaborators who
provided expertise on specific plant families. It resulted in two products: a hard copy of
the inventory of the Angolan plants, together with additional information on collectors,
synonyms and literature references, and a website (FLAN: Flora of Angola Online,
http://flan.sanbi.org/) containing the information included in the hard copy.
Source: Figueiredo and Smith (2008) and Smith and Figueiredo (2010)
Germany:
WW
W PGRDEU - Germany online CWR inventory. Available from:
http://pgrdeu.genres.de/index.php?tpl=home [Accessed May 2012].
Guatemala:
USDA, ARS. Atlas of Guatemalan Crop Wild Relatives (Atlas
WW Guatemalteco de Parientes Silvestres de las Plantas Cultivadas).
W Available from:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=22225 [Accessed
May 2012].
Ireland:
FitzPatrick Ú and Lupton D (2010) Establishment of a national crop wild
relative (CWR) database. Final report to Department of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food. Conservation of Genetic Resources Grant Aid
Scheme for 2010 [Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Ref:
10/GR/10]. National Biodiversity Data Centre. Available from:
http://www.biodiversityireland.ie/wp-
content/uploads/Establishement-of-a-national-crop-wild-relative-
WW database_Final-report-Dec-2010.pdf [Accessed May 2012].
W Genetic Resources (2010) Portal for information on Crop Wild Relatives in
Ireland. Available from:
http://geneticresources.biodiversityireland.ie/crop-wild-relatives/
[Accessed May 2012]. (Monographic approach).
Italy:
Mazzola P, Raimondo F M and Scuderi G (1997) The occurrence of wild
relatives of cultivated plants in Italian protected areas. Bocconea 7: 241-
248.
Madagascar:
WW
W Madagascar CWR inventory. Available from: http://mg.chm-
cbd.net/cwr_mada [Accessed May 2012]. (monographic approach)
Portugal:
Magos Brehm J, Maxted N, Ford‐Lloyd BV and Martins‐Loução MA
(2008a) National inventories of crop wild relatives and wild harvested
plants: case‐study for Portugal. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
55: 779‐796. (floristic approach)
Russia:
Smekalova T (2008) “National crop wild relative in situ conservation
strategy for Russia.” In: Maxted N, Kell SP, Ford-Lloyd BV, Dulloo E and
Iriondo J (eds) Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 143-151.
Seychelles:
Antoine H (2004) Crop wild relative inventory of the Seychelles.
Unpublished MSc Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham.
Spain:
Rubio Teso ML, Torres ME, Parra-Quijano M and Iriondo JM (2012)
Prioritization of crop wild relatives in Spain. Crop Wild Relative 8: 18-
21.
Sri Lanka:
Hunter D and Heywood V (eds.) (2011) Crop wild relatives, a manual of in
situ conservation. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity. Earthscan,
WW London, Washington.
W Sri Lanka CWR inventory:
http://www.agridept.gov.lk/index.php/en/crop-wild-relatives
(monographic approach)
Switzerland:
Häner R and Schierscher B (2009) First step towards CWR conservation in
Switzerland. Crop Wild Relative 7: 14-16. Available from:
http://www.cwrsg.org/Publications/Newsletters/crop%20wild%20relati
ve%20Issue%207.pdf [Accessed May 2012].
WW Swiss Commission for Cultivated Plant Conservation (2000-2012) Crop
W Wild Relative. Available from: http://www.bdn.ch/pages/cwr/
[Accessed May 2012]. (floristic approach)
The Netherlands:
Hoekstra R, van Veller MGP and Odé B (2008) “Crop wild relatives in the
Netherlands: actors and protection measures.” In: Maxted N, Ford-
Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo JM, Dulloo ME and Turok J (eds) Crop Wild
Relative Conservation and Use. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp. 165–
177.
United Kingdom:
Maxted N, Scholten MA, Codd R and Ford-Lloyd BV (2007) Creation and
use of a national inventory of crop wild relatives. Biological
Conservation 140: 142-159. (floristic approach)
United States of America:
Greene S and Khoury C (2011) What’s in our back yard? Developing an
inventory of US native and naturalized crop germplasm. Presentation
on initial stages of US CWR project for C-8 symposium, ASA
conference, October 2011. Available from:
http://www.slideshare.net/CWRofUS/cwr-us-presentation-c8
WW [Accessed May 2012].
W
Crop wild relatives of the United States. Available from:
http://cwroftheus.wordpress.com/ [Accessed May 2012].
Uzbekistan:
Hunter D and Heywood V (eds.) (2011) Crop wild relatives, a manual of in
situ conservation. Issues in Agricultural Biodiversity. Earthscan,
London, Washington.
Venezuela:
Berlingeri C and Crespo MB (2012) Inventory of related wild species of
priority crops in Venezuela. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution
59(5): 655-681.
Several countries:
FAO Country Reports (2009). Albania, Benin, Brazil, Japan, Jordan,
Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan,
Senegal, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Available from:
http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/seeds-
pgr/sow/sow2/country-reports/en/ [Accessed May 2012]. (inventories
of the wild relatives of major and minor crops, monographic approach)
Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies on Crop Genepools Series.
Available from: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/ [Accessed
May 2012]. (present monographic inventories)
17
Flint (1991)
18
Shands (1994)
19
Drucker et al. (2001)
20
See e.g. Fitter and Fitter (1987)
21
See Maxted et al. (1997c)
22
Whitten (1990)
23
Department of Environment (1996)
24
Sapir et al. (2003)
25
Tambutii et al. (2001)
26
Hoffmann and Welk (1999)
27
Schnittler and Günther (1999)
28
Whitten (1990)
29
Vane‐Wright et al. (1991)
30
Faith (1992)
31
Linder (1995)
32
Norton (1994)
33
Dhar et al. (2000)
34
Bishop (1978)
basis of potential economic value of the related crop, the degree of relationship of the
wild relative to the crop / ease of crossing with the crop, and relative level of threat35,36. A
combination of all three criteria is usually used.
However, whatever prioritization methodology and criteria are used, the total number of
target CWR should be adjusted to a number that can be actively conserved using the
available financial and human resources. There is no precise way of estimating the
number of target CWR and so the estimate will be subjective.
An alternative more flexible approach would be to assigned different levels of
conservation priority depending on the groups of conservationists going to be
undertaking the CWR conservation and how may taxa seems reasonable for each of them
to consider implementing active conservation. In this way, a more extensive list is more
easily objectively justified, maintained and updated, and taxa that are not of immediate
priority may be given conservation attention at a later date. Further using this approach,
some of the taxa that are of less immediate conservation action may occur within the
same sites as those of highest priority, so they could be captured in the same in situ CWR
conservation sites and targeted when collecting higher priority for ex situ conservation.
The critical point being there is no exact number of national priority CWR that should be
set down or set as a target for each national CWR inventory.
The process of setting priorities for CWR conservation can be complex and time-
consuming depending on the methodology and criteria used. Methodologically, the
starting point of prioritisation is the CWR national checklist, the list of all CWR found in
the country, and a list that is too long to be considered for active conservation. Whatever
the approach, floristic or monographic, prioritization essentially consists of three main
steps: (i) Definition of the valuation criteria to be applied, (ii) Definition of the
prioritisation methodology, and (iii) Application of both the criteria and the methodology
to obtain the priority CWR. Associated with these steps there will also be a need to
consider how many priority CWR will be flagged for immediate conservation action.
35
Barazani et al. (2008)
36
Ford‐Lloyd et al. (2008)
National CWR Checklist
DEFINE CRITERIA
DEFINE PRIORITIZATION
SCHEME
PRIORITY CWR
COLLATE ADDITIONAL
ECOGEOGRAPHIC DATA
A.4.2. Methodology
(i) Definition of the CWR prioritization criteria. The main criteria to consider are:
Economic value of the related crop: CWR have their main potential application in
genetic improvement of existing varieties or the creation of new ones; the
economic importance of the related crop species is thus a good indicator of their
wild relative value. The selection of priority crops will vary according to scale of
prioritization (i.e., global, regional, national or local) and may even vary according
to the implementing agency. However, the highest priority crops are likely to be
food crops (important for nutrition and food security), crops of economic value
and crops with multiple use values. Note should be made that a single genus may
contain more than one crop as for Solanum (e.g. Solanum tuberosum L. – potato,
and Solanum melongena L. – aubergine). Several sub‐criteria concerning the
national economic value of the related crop can be taken into consideration such
as: quantity produced, surface area of cultivation, number of varieties grown at
national level, and value to local populations or regions of the target country.
Genetic potential as a gene donor: The wild taxa in a crop gene pool are
genetically related by degree, some being more closely related to the crop than
others. Where genetic information is available, taxa can be classified using the
Gene Pool concept37 and for some crops, the Gene Pool concept has already been
defined. However, if genetic data are not available and the Gene Pool concept has
not been previously defined, the Taxon Group concept38 which provides a proxy
for taxon genetic relatedness can be applied. In general, the closest wild relatives
in GP1B and GP2 or TG1B and TG2 are given priority. However, tertiary wild
relatives that are already known as gene donors or have shown promise for crop
improvement should also be assigned high priority. If neither Gene Pool nor
Taxon Group concepts can be applied, then the available information on genetic
and/or taxonomic distance should be analysed to make reasoned assumptions
about the most closely related taxa. Gene Pool or Taxon Group concepts have
been compiled for approximately 174 food crop gene pools and are available
online39. For other crops, a literature survey will be required in order to ascertain if
Gene Pool or Taxon Group concepts have already been established or if
taxonomic classification are available to establish new Taxon Group concepts and
so establish the degree of relationship of each wild relative to its associated crop
(see ‘Additional materials and resources’).
Status of occurrence: whether the CWR is native to the country, introduced40, and
if it is known to be invasive.
Threat status: Relative threat is probably the most obvious criterion used in
establishing conservation priorities: the more threatened (i.e. increased likelihood
of genetic erosion or actual extinction of the species) the greater the conservation
priority. Therefore, the collation of existing threat assessments will give us an
indication of the extinction risk of the species but also will allow us to use that
information when prioritising taxa for conservation. As the knowledge about
plant taxa has increased, so national Red Lists and Red Books (see ‘Additional
materials and resources’) are published based on the IUCN Red List Categories
and Criteria―the most commonly applied means of assessing threat to wild taxa.
Threat assessment can be carried out at different geographical scales (i.e., global,
regional, national). Both national and global assessments should be taken into
account but the meaning and implications of threat status depends on the scale of
the assessment and this should be taken into account when applying the criterion
of relative threat in the prioritization process.
The collation of existing threat assessments is a four stage process: (i)
Identification of potential sources of information on threat to CWR, (ii) establish
if CWR have been Red List assessed, (iii) for the CWR not already assessed gather
the necessary data and undertake novel red list assessment, and (iv) Collation of
37
Gene Pool concept: GP1A‐cultivated forms of the crop, GP1B‐wild or weedy forms of the crop, GP2‐secondary
wild relatives (less closely related species from which gene transfer to the crop is possible but difficult using
conventional breeding techniques), GP3‐tertiary wild relatives (species from which gene transfer to the crop is
impossible, or if possible, requires sophisticated techniques, such as embryo rescue, somatic fusion or genetic
engineering) (Harlan and de Wet 1971).
38
Taxon Group concept: TG1a‐crop, TG1b‐same species as crop, TG2‐same series or section as crop, TG3‐same
subgenus as crop, TG4‐same genus (Maxted et al. 2006).
39
www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/
40
According to Kornas (1990), an introduced species can be roughly classified according to its approximate date
of introduction: archaeophyte (before 1500s) or neophyte (after 1500s) and diaphyte (established in a non‐
permanent way).
existing threat assessments (at national and global level) (see Figure 8).
Information on threat assessment of CWR can be obtained from national and
regional Red Lists and Red Data Books (see ‘Additional materials and resources’),
the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (for global Red List assessments,
searchable at http://www.iucnredlist.org/), as well as peer-reviewed papers and
reports, and expert knowledge.
In the absence of Red List assessments, endemism and relative distribution can be
used as an indicator of relative threat. Inferences from known threats to/loss of
habitats/land use types can also be applied, as well as local expert knowledge.
(See A.7. Novel threat assessment of priority CWR).
Conservation status: before a taxon can be given high priority for conservation,
related current conservation activities should be reviewed. If sufficient genetic
diversity is already being conserved by in situ and/or ex situ, additional
conservation efforts may not be justified, and resources should focus on those
species that are not being conserved.
a. Ex situ: careful attention to the information obtained from current ex situ
conservation holdings should be paid because: the material held in gene
banks might be incorrectly determined, dead, in poor conditions or
unavailable to potential users, the number of accessions might be
misleading because of duplicates, and/or the ex situ accessions might not
be representative of the overall genetic diversity of a species.
b. In situ: just because a species is found in a protected area does not
necessarily mean that it is adequately protected; for example, the
population size may be declining due to the focus of the management plan
being on other species and therefore the management actions having a
negative impact on the CWR population. Two types of in situ conservation
can be distinguished: passive, when species and genetic diversity is not
being monitored and managed, and active conservation, when species and
genetic diversity is afforded long-term monitoring and management. Given
these concepts, actively conserved species are given lower priority for
conservation than passively conserved species, and the latter is given
lower priority than those taxa that do not occur in PA.
Legislation: whether the taxon is under any kind of regional, national or local
legislative protection; if so, it will automatically require conservation attention
because national governments are under a legal obligation to protect them. It is
important to note however that these species may already be afforded some level
of conservation action due to their legislative protection status. Whether this is
the case or not will be ascertained when the gap analysis is undertaken (see
section A9, ‘Gap analysis of priority CWR’).
Species distribution: in general, priority increases inversely to geographic range,
such that species with a more restricted distribution (e.g. national endemics)
should be given higher priority than species occurring worldwide. The reason
relative distribution may be used for prioritization is that geographically
restricted species are potentially more adversely impact by localized threats and
extinction events and loss of any single population or group of populations may
impact the entire viability of the species.
a. Global distribution: the distribution of the taxon worldwide. Species
endemic to a country or that occur in only a few countries are likely to be
prioritized above those that occur in several countries. However, it should
be noted that a species can occur in several countries and still be of priority
at national level because of its nationally restricted range or based on other
prioritization criteria. Also, the size of the countries (i.e. Russia versus
Lesotho) that the species occurs in must be taken into account, as well as
the species distribution within those countries.
b. National distribution: the distribution of the taxon within the country (e.g.
the number of provinces where each taxon occurs). It may be considered as
an indicator of rarity, a species occurring in few regions within the country
is considered rarer than a species occurring throughout the country.
However, when deciding priorities on the basis of the geographical range of the
taxa a degree of objectivity is required, since there is no clear dividing line
between a taxon with a limited range and one with a distribution that is deemed to
enable ‘classification’ of the taxon as one not in immediate need of conservation
action, unless very detailed information is already available about genetic erosion
of the taxa. However, where the range of a taxon is known, the methodology
proposed by Ford-Lloyd et al. (2008, 2009) can be used as a guide when
establishing taxon conservation priorities at regional level (e.g., across sub-
Saharan Africa). Generally speaking, taxa that are known to be endemic to a
country or subnational unit or those that occur in only a few countries or
subnational units are more likely to be under threat at regional level. Similarly, at
national or subnational level, available information must be gathered on the range
of the taxa in order to establish which are most likely to be threatened by their
limited distribution range.
Use requirement: As the raison d’etre for the conservation of CWR is primarily
their use by breeders, there involvement in establishing the list of species to be
actively conserved should be encouraged. This potential involvement of breeders
in defining conservation targets has the additional benefit of also encouraging
closer links between conservationists and germplasm users, therefore promoting
use and it reinforces the maxim ‘through use comes conservation sustainability’.
Other: other criteria that might be useful or considered important include
population data (though such data are generally scarce), species and area
management, genetic diversity, relative costs of conservation, etc.
The definition of the criteria applied in the CWR prioritization process should be
made by the national agency or researcher that is undertaking this task. Although
CWR prioritization can be carried out at different geographical (i.e., global,
regional, national, subnational) and taxonomic (e.g., crop genus) scales and can be
simple to complex, depending on scale, time, resources and conservation goals. The
methods used vary depending on a number of factors—the number of taxa, the
resources available for their conservation, the differing needs of the target area and
the priorities/interests of the implementing body. Recent studies have shown how
CWR can be prioritized globally (Maxted and Kell, 2009), regionally (Ford‐Lloyd et
al., 2008; Kell et al., 2012) and nationally (e.g., Maxted et al., 2007; Magos Brehm et
al., 2010). However, it should be emphasized that at each scale the economic value
of the related crop (hence breeder demand), genetic potential for contributing traits
and relative threat are the most widely used criteria.
(ii) Definition of the prioritization scheme. Similar to the selection of the prioritization
criteria, the choice of the scheme (or methodology) should be a decision made by
the national agency that is undertaking this task. The complexity of the scheme will
depend on time available, financial resources and data availability, etc.
Prioritization schemes often include rule‐based and scoring systems, with or
without weighting of the criteria, and different combinations of criteria (see Box 21).
(iii) Application of both the criteria and the prioritization scheme to the checklist. This
will culminate in the list of priority CWR to which data may be added to produce
the inventory.
Box 21. Systems and methods for setting species priorities
Numerous systems and methods have been used to set species priorities for
conservation. One of the first attempts was presented by Rabinowitz (1981) and
Rabinowitz et al. (1986) where an eight‐celled table based on range, habitat specificity
and local abundance to evaluate different ‘types of rarity’. Rule-based systems and
scoring schemes (or ranking systems) are probably the most commonly used
prioritisation methods.
A rule-based system is used by IUCN (2001) and consists of a series of rules that a
species has to agree with in order to fit in to a certain category. This method can have
two variants: it can be used to select those species that fulfil ALL criteria selected
allowing us to select those species that fulfil SIMULTANEOUSLY ALL CRITERIA (e.g.
CWR AND threatened species AND species not conserved both in situ and ex situ), or to
select those species that fulfil SOME of the criteria allowing us to be more flexible (e.g.
ALL CWR THAT ARE EITHER threatened species OR species not conserved both in situ
and ex situ).
Scoring schemes use multiple scoring over a range of criteria to derive total scores for
each species (Given and Norton 1993), resulting in a ranked list of species. This system
has been applied to a wide range of taxa of plant species (e.g. Perring and Farrell 1983,
Briggs and Leigh 1988, CALM 1994, Dhar et al. 2000, Sapir et al. 2003, and Kala et al.
2004) worldwide. A scoring system was also by Kala et al. (2004) to establish
conservation priorities of medicinal plants in Uttaranchal (India). Medicinal plants were
given scores for specific criteria: endemism (to the Himalayan region), mode of
harvesting (shoots, roots or both), use values (the number of diseases cured by a
species), and rarity status, as follows:
Category of criteria Sub-category
Scores
Endemism Endemic to the Himalaya 1
Non-endemic 0
Mode of harvesting Shoot or aboveground plant part 1
Roots 2
Both roots and shoots 3
Use value Used in 1-5 ailments 1
Used in 6-10 ailments 2
Used in 11-15 ailments 3
Used in >16 ailments 4
Rarity status Rare 1
Vulnerable 2
Endangered 3
Critically endangered 4
Species scores were summed up for each species without any weighting to give total
scores. The maximum score a species could get was 12. A priority list of 17 medicinal
plants was then obtained, where higher scores correspond to highest priority.
Scoring systems have also been complemented with multivariate analysis in order to
look at the arrangement of these species so as to identify groups of species with similar
profiles (e.g. Given and Norton 1993), uncertainty values associated with some of the
criteria, reflecting the extent of the existing knowledge, and thus their confidence in the
estimates presented (e.g. Hunter et al. 1993, Carter and Barker 1993), and user‐friendly
interactive databases (Hunter et al. 1993).
The weighting of criteria is a variant of the scoring system (e.g. Carter and Barker 1993,
Lunney et al. 1996). The Department of Environment (1996) suggested the use of
“individual weighting on each criterion in order to give some indication of the relative
importance of that factor in measuring the extent of threat”. However, according to
Carter and Barker (1993) in the absence of information suggesting which criteria may be
more important in determining conservation priority for a species, it is better to keep the
weights equal across criteria.
Amongst the most widely applied systems is the biodiversity status‐ranking system (a
variant of a scoring system) developed and used by the Natural Heritage Network and
The Nature Conservancy in the US (Master 1991, Morse 1993, Stein 1993). The species
ranks are based on information about each species for a series of criteria relating to
species' rarity (number of individuals, number of populations or occurrences, rarity of
habitat, and size of geographic range), population trends, and threats; a scale ranging
from (1) critically imperilled to (5) demonstrably secure was then used to assign a rank to
each species at three separate levels – global, national, and state or province (Stein et al.
1995). When these three levels were combined, the system allowed for a rapid assessment
of the species’ known or probable threat of extinction (Master 1991).
Other approaches include that suggested by Coates and Atkins (2001) who developed a
priority setting process for Western Australian flora where risk of extinction at
population, taxon and ecological community levels were the primary determinant for
setting priorities. The authors considered, however, that if financial resources are
severely limited then further prioritization has to be undertaken based on taxonomic
distinctiveness and ability to recover. Pärtel et al. (2005) proposed a new combined
approach where species with conservation need are grouped according to the similar
activities needed for their conservation. These species were linked to eight qualitative
conservation characteristics, four reflecting natural causes of rarity (restricted global
distribution, restricted local distribution within a country, with small populations, and
occurring in very rare habitat types), and four connected with nature management
(species needing the management of semi-natural grasslands, species needing local
disturbances like forest fires, species needing traditional extensive agriculture, and
species which may be threatened by collecting). This procedure allows one to focus on
species groups with similar conservation needs instead of individual species.
(iv) Identifying traits of interest for crop improvement. Two distinct but
complementary components of genetic variation have been identified. The first is
related to the functional diversity which has resulted from adaptive evolution due
to natural selection (which acts on a limited set of loci). The second relates to
neutral alleles which result from neutral evolutionary forces such as gene flow,
mutation and genetic drift which affect genetic variation at all loci to the same
extent. The relative importance of adaptive versus neutral variation in
conservation genetics has been vastly debated over the years41. Adaptive variation
refers to alleles (or quantitative traits) that affect fitness. They are the primary
targets of natural selection and reflect the species’ potential ability to adapt to
changing environments42. Adaptive genetic variation is evaluated in quantitative
41
e.g. Bowen (1999), Fraser and Bernatchez (2001), Merilä and Crnokrak (2001), Reed and Frankham
(2001), McKay and Latta (2002), Holderegger et al. (2006)
42
e.g. Falconer and Mackay (1996), McKay and Latta (2002), van Tienderen et al. (2002)
genetic experiments under controlled and uniform environmental conditions.
Nevertheless, the assessment of adaptive variation assessment is very time
consuming and quantitative traits involved in adaptation are sometimes difficult
to find. Moreover, since that adaptive quantitative variation is the result of
environmental and genetic factors, large sample sizes are required (which might
not be available in rare or threatened populations) in order to understand the
contribution of these components to the overall variation. Recent developments in
high-throughput sequencing now provide an opportunity to discover the genetic
signatures of selection at a genome-wide level43. Although finding individual
genes under selection based on genetic variation patterns between adaptively
differentiated populations is conceptually simple, it requires wide genomic
sampling. A further challenge is to link patterns of adaptive variation at specific
loci in natural populations to environmental factors affecting these patterns (i.e.,
how is adaptation to different ecologies/habitats driven from the molecular level?)
Neutral genetic diversity, on the other hand, refers to those alleles that have no
direct effect on a species’ fitness and which are not affected by natural selection.
They do not provide information on the adaptive or evolutionary potential of
populations or species. This type of genetic diversity can be assessed using a wide
range of molecular markers. They include microsatellites and AFLP (Amplified
Fragment Length Polymorphism). The assessment of neutral genetic variation has
been frequently used as a shortcut to infer global genetic diversity and to support
strategies for the conservation of threatened taxa44. The use of molecular markers
is a fast and relatively cheap technique which allows the study of gene flow,
migration and dispersal.
The topic on whether a correlation between neutral and adaptive variation exists
has been debated and conclusions do not always agree. Some authors have found
that neutral and adaptive genetic diversity and differentiation are positively
correlated45, whereas other studies indicate that measurements of neutral diversity
have a very limited prediction ability of quantitative variation46 and thus cannot
be used as a surrogate for adaptive genetic data, at least for some traits. However,
despite the controversy, neutral genetic markers can provide highly useful
information for the conservation of genetic resources. They can be used to
characterize various evolutionary forces that impact the maintenance of genetic
diversity47. For example, based on neutral marker data, it is possible to reveal the
extent of genetic drift, gene flow and inbreeding, or the presence of past
population bottlenecks. Within the context of genetic conservation, especially
under a climate change threat, gene conservation strategies should focus on the
adaptive capacity of populations (and species) by considering their “individual
plasticity” (i.e. their ability to respond to different environmental conditions), their
adaptive genetic diversity and the occurrence of natural selection that acts upon
43
Brieuc and Naish (2011)
44
e.g. Palacios and González‐Candelas (1999), Rottenberg and Parker (2003), Eckstein et al. (2006),
Watson‐Jones et al. (2006)
45
e.g. Merilä and Crnokrak (2001), Pearman (2001)
46
e.g. Reed and Frankham (2001, 2002)
47
Ahuja (2011)
them, as well as their ability to disperse48. Adaptive variation assessment is
therefore particularly important since it allows the identification of the
components of genetic diversity responsible for the adaptation of populations to
different conditions. Nevertheless, adaptive studies are still more time consuming
and expensive but are becoming more achievable. In summary, ideally, an
adaptive diversity study should be undertaken. If for reasons of limited financial
resources, time available or lack of skilled staff it is not possible to undertake such
studies, and assuming there is a positive correlation between neutral and adaptive
genetic diversity, then neutral genetic diversity results could be used as a proxy of
adaptive genetic diversity.
48
Lefèvre (2007)
GENETIC DIVERSITY
ASSESSMENT
NO YES
Funding to undertake
genetic study?
NO YES
YES NO
NO YES
ANALYSIS OF NOVEL
GENETIC DATA
A.5.2. Methodology
The main practical questions that need to be answered in regard to the collation of
genetic data are:
(i) Are there any genetic studies and genetic information already available for
the target CWR? If so, collate all the information obtained which can be
useful to understand the species genetic characteristics. Information on
breeding system and seed dispersal mechanism as well as on other life
history traits should also be gathered as they are crucial in determining the
patterns of genetic diversity among and between populations. If no genetic
information is available, then if possible a genetic study (on adaptive or
neutral diversity) should be carried out.
(ii) Are there sufficient financial resources to undertake a genetic study (either
on adaptive or neutral genetic diversity)?
(iii) Are there enough population samples available to undertake the genetic
study? These may be either material of the species already present in
available ex situ collections or through fresh collection from throughout the
ecogeographic range of the species.
(iv) Are there skilled staff able to undertake such a study? If financial resources
and expertise are available, a genetic study is thus desirable. If financial
resources are available but no skilled staff, plant samples should be
collected, then sent to skilled experts to analyse.
(v) However, if resources are limited and not available to carry out a genetic
diversity study, ecogeographic diversity (together with information on
reproduction and dispersal systems) can be used as a proxy for genetic
diversity (different ecogeographic characteristics entail different genetic
characteristics). In other words, if a priority CWR species is distributed
throughout a country then it is assumed, unless there is evidence to the
contrary, that genetic diversity or distance is partitioned in relation to
ecogeographic diversity, and sampling from the maximum diversity of
locations will result in the most genetically diverse samples. Disparate
ecogeographic locations can then be identified for the establishment of in
situ CWR conservation sites or the sampling of populations for ex situ
conservation.
Box 26. Genetic diversity in relation to life history traits in plant species
Hamrick (1983) and Loveless and Hamrick (1984) used several life history and
ecological traits to determine whether inter-population genetic heterogeneity was
related to the species' characteristics. They found that life form, geographic range,
breeding system and taxonomic status had significant effects on the partitioning
of genetic diversity within and among plant populations. For detailed information
on how breeding system, floral morphology, mode of reproduction, pollination
mechanism, seed dispersal, seed dormancy, phenology, life cycle, timing of
reproduction, successional stage, geographic range, population size and density,
and population spatial distribution may affect the genetic variation within
populations as well as the genetic structure among and within populations, see a
literature review of several case studies undertaken by Loveless and Hamrick
(1984).
In addition, Hamrick and Godt (1996) perform two-trait combination analyses on
five different life history characteristics (breeding systems, seed dispersal
mechanism, life form, geographic range, and taxonomic status) in order to study
how genetic diversity varies in seed plants. They analysed interspecific variation
of allozyme genetic diversity regarding the percentage of polymorphic loci within
the species (P), genetic diversity within the species (Hardy-Weinberg expected
heterozygosity - Hes- Weir 1990), and the proportion of total genetic diversity
among populations (GST).
The categories of each of the life history traits studied were:
‐ breeding systems: outcrossing, selfing and mixed mating;
‐ seed dispersal mechanism: attached, gravity, animal, wind;
‐ life form: annual, short-lived and long-lived perennial taxa;
‐ geographic range: endemic, regional, narrow and widespread;
‐ taxonomic status: gymnosperm, dicotyledon, monocotyledon.
The authors concluded that all examined traits have significant effects on the
genetic parameters considered but life form and breeding system have the most
significant influence on the levels and distribution of genetic diversity. Their main
conclusions were:
‐ regardless of other traits, outcrossing species tend to be more genetically
diverse and have less genetic differentiation among populations;
‐ woody plants have less among population differentiation and somewhat
more genetic diversity than non-woody species with similar life history traits;
‐ species within families with predominately outcrossing and woody species
had more genetic diversity and less inter-population differentiation than species
within families with predominately herbaceous species;
‐ species with low inter-population genetic differentiation tend to have more
overall genetic diversity;
‐ woody plants have lower GST values and somewhat higher P, and Hes values
than herbaceous plants with the same combinations of life history traits,
regardless of their phylogenetic relationship.
Table 1. Ecological factors affecting genetic variation and population structure 49, 50
Ecological factor Genetic variation Genetic structure among populations Genetic structure within populations
within populations
Breeding system
Primarily inbreeding Lower than other Increased divergence due to drift and Reduced heterozygosity and within family
species, low reduced gene flow genotypic diversity; low Ne; restricted gene
heterozygosity migration and high population subdivision
Mixed mating More variability Potential for differentiation; depends on Potentially subdivided; depends on balance
selfing and may vary in time between selfing and outcrossing
Predominantly Higher than other Reduced divergence due to increased Increased Ne and NA, reduced subdivision
outbreeding species, high pollen flow
heterozygosity
Floral morphology
Hermaphrodite Moderate levels if Depends on breeding system; selfing Potential for subdivision; depends on
mixed mating; lower promotes divergence mating system and pollen movement; floral
if selfing morphology affects pollination and pollen
carryover, altering Ne and NA up or down
Monoecious or Potentially high, if Increased outbreeding and pollen flow Depends on mating system and pollinators;
dichogamous predominantly reduce differentiation likely to have reduced subdivision and
outcrossed increased homogeneity
Dioecious or High Enforced outcrossing and pollen Enforced outbreeding reduces subdivision;
49
Adapted from Loveless and Hamrick (1984)
50
Ne=effective population size, NA=neighbourhood area
Dianthus cintranus Boiss. & Reut. subsp. barbatus R. Fern. & Franco, a wild relative
of carnations (D. caryophyllus L.) in Caramulo (Portugal) (photo: Joana Magos
Brehm).
51
Maxted et al. (1995)
52
Castañeda Álvarez et al. (2011)
53
If these areas were selected based on high concentrations of CWR they might be considered
analogous to the broader biodiversity hotspots (Mittermeier et al. 1999, Myers et al. 2000) or taxonomic
Important Plant Areas (Target 5 of the CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation ‐
www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross‐cutting/plant/) and in this case areas with high concentrations of
CWR diversity might be referred to as Important CWR Areas.
Allium altaicum Pallas, one of the ancestors and close relatives of cultivated
onion A. cepa L., in Dzhungar Ala Tau (East Tien Shan, Kazakhstan) (photo:
Vojtech Holubec).
A.6.2. Methodology
(i) Identification of taxon expertise. Taxon experts and people with specialist
knowledge of the flora of a target area may give you accurate species
location and ecological information as well as recommend relevant grey
literature, Floras, monographs, taxonomic databases, which herbaria and
gene banks should be visited, and also put the conservationist in contact
with other specialists. Experts to contact may include:
Botanical, agrobiodiversity and biodiversity conservation, taxonomic,
genetic, geographic, breeding, researchers;
Herbaria and gene bank curators;
NGOs working in conservation in the target region or target crops.
(ii) Selection of target taxon/taxonomy. The generally accepted taxonomic
classification can be determined with the help of:
Target taxon experts;
National or global Floras;
Taxonomic monographs;
Identification of taxon
expertise
Delimitation of target
area
Data verification
Data analysis
PHASE 3: PRODUCTION
Data synthesis
54
Modified from Maxted et al. (1995)
Recent taxonomic revisions;
Taxonomic databases, etc.
It is important to detect existing synonyms so to avoid missing specimens
that may be identified under synonymous names and to prevent separate
treatments of the same taxon. In the context of the development of National
management plan for CWR conservation, this step would already have been
undertaken as part of the creation of the CWR checklist (prior to taxon
prioritization).
(iii) Delimitation of the target area. Normally an ecogeographic study should
include the whole range of the species distribution so as to avoid the problem
of non-compatible data sets that can be inherent in multiple surveys of the
same taxon. However, given that the management plan is at national level, the
whole country should be the target area.
(iv) Design and creation of the ecogeographic database structure.
A careful reflection on the types of data to be included in the database
should precede its creation. The collecting form (when field work is to be
undertaken) should be strongly linked to this database (i.e., all fields in
the collecting form should be included in the database structure);
Types of data include: accession descriptors, collecting descriptors,
nomenclatural data, socio-economic data, site and environment data
Data descriptors and data standards should be determined;
The database software package should be both user-friendly and able to
accommodate the complexity of a database of this kind. Several database
software packages are available (Microsoft Access, MySQL, etc.).
The data format should be standardised;
The ecogeographic database should be directly linked to the CWR
national inventory through a unique identifier (CWR taxon ID).Typically,
the database may comprise two linked tables―the taxon information table
and the ecogeographic data table (as suggested below). However, for
practical reasons, more than one table may be used to manage the
ecogeographic data which is likely to contain many data fields. :
a. Taxon information table: links the CWR checklist to taxon level data
collected during the survey. Data are usually obtained from
bibliographic references (Floras, monographs, etc.) and may include:
taxon name, synonyms, authorities, vernacular names, plant life-
form16, reproductive system, habitat, flowering time, altitude,
chromosome number, national and global distribution, actual and
potential uses, etc.
b. Ecogeographic data table: links the CWR checklist to accession level
data collected from the herbarium specimens, germplasm
accessions, personal communications, bibliographic references and
field surveys; each taxon in the inventory is likely to have several
accessions which may or may not be collected in different locations,
giving an approximation of the taxon distribution. Passport data
include: institution acronym, accession number, location,
coordinates, altitude, date of collection, collectors’ name, if specimen
was flowering or fruiting, ecological notes (climate, soil type, etc.)55,
associated species, taxonomic revision notes, population and threat
data, etc. The basic types of data recorded at the accession level are
summarised within the FAO/Bioversity Multi-crop Passport
Descriptors (MCPD) ver. 2 (Alercia et al. 2012 at
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/public
ations/pdfs/1526_FAO-
Bioversity_multi_crop_passport_descriptors_V.2_Final_rev.pdf)
(see Annex 4).
(v) Survey and collation of diversity and ecogeographic data into the database.
Sources of data are likely to include:
Herbaria and gene banks (also on-line)
Scientific and ‘grey’ literature: Floras, monographs, recent taxon studies,
reports of Environmental Impact Assessment studies56, databases,
gazetteers, scientific papers, soil, vegetation and climate maps, atlases,
etc., available both in conventional printed paper and in digital files;
GIS layers: ecogeographic analysis is increasingly linked to some form of
spatial analysis and this analysis requires GIS maps to compare to the
accession data, recently ecogeographic land characterization maps have
been generated that combine multiple feature of interest (see Box 30);
Expert knowledge: contact with taxonomic or geographic experts is likely
to provide significant additional data to facilitate the analysis and will
also provide an opportunity to gain feedback on the analysis results;
Field survey data: where ecogeographic data is scarce there may be
insufficient data to undertake meaningful ecogeographic analysis and it
will then be necessary to collate fresh data from field observation of the
target taxa.
55
Ecological notes include information registered as passport data. However, posterior information (e.g.
on temperature, rainfall, air humidity, frost, soil type, soil pH, soil rock, etc.) can be extracted at each
known location using a GIS.
56
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) have been defined by the IAIA and IEA (1999) as “the process
of identifying, predicting, evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of
development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments made.” In other words,
they permit assessing the possible negative and positive impacts that a project (e.g. highway, dam,
building, etc.) may have on the natural, social and economic aspects. Regarding the biophysical aspect,
EIA reports generally provide species lists of Flora (and Fauna) that occur in the area where the project is
to be developed thus constituting important sources of species distributional data.
Box 30. Ecogeographic land characterization mapping
Ecogeographic land characterization (ELC) maps have been proposed as a
suitable technique to assess the adequacy of ecogeographic representativeness of
germplasm in ex situ collections. The map reflects as many categories as
environmental adaptive scenarios occurring over a particular area, based on
bioclimatic, geophysical and edaphic characteristics to form a combined
ecogeographic map, the process is summarised in the following model.
The authors used this approach to suggest genetic reserves for beet CWR in
Europe using population density maps, ecogeographic data and species
distribution models as follows:
1. A map of population density of the selected species was elaborated as a starting
point.
2. Locations were refined by choosing site with potential richness of at least two
species.
3. Areas with most representative ecogeographic units for group of species were
selected.
4. Sites located within existing protected areas, with the greatest number of
populations, representing common and marginal ecogeographic units for the
target taxa. The premise of this approach is that the conservation of the species’
greatest ecogeographic variability implies the conservation of the greatest genetic
diversity of adaptive importance and, possibly, the most interesting allelic
variation in the genes of interest for crop improvement. Below (a) shows an
Ecogeographic Land Characterization map for Beta species with 50 ecogeographic
categories and (b) shows the potential species richness map for three Beta species.
Source: Parra-Quijano et al., 2008; Parra-Quijano et al., 2011; Parra-Quijano et al.,
2012b
Box 31 lists the different types of data to include in the ecogeographic database.
Existing descriptors and data standards should be used where possible in order to
improve options for data sharing (see section A.3.2.). The passport data should be
available for every accession of every CWR included; though it should be stressed
that georeferencing is often required to ensure the necessary data is complete. The
characterisation and evaluation data are frequently not available and may require
specific trials. The broader the sampling of ecogeographic data associated with
herbarium specimens and germplasm accessions the more geographically and
ecologically representative the data will be.
Check for
duplicates
Georeferencing
Ascribe levels of
accuracy
GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
Distribution maps
57
Adapted from Magos Brehm (2009)
(vii) Analysis of collated data. Data analysis may include:
The distribution of CWR;
The ecogeographic characterisation of CWR;
The distribution of specific characterization and evaluation traits (e.g.
pest resistance, frost tolerance, yield characteristics) within the CWR;
The mapping and detection of ecogeographic patterns (e.g. phenology of
the species in different areas, whether a particular CWR occurs on a
particular soil type, or whether the frequency of a character state changes
along an environmental gradient);
The identification of representative populations of the full range of
diversity of each target taxon and/or with traits of specific interest;
The identification of populations for ex situ sampling and conservation
for individual taxa and hotspots for groups of taxa
The identification of hotspots for groups of taxa for in situ conservation
Climate change analysis to identify threatened population that required
ex situ conservation or population suitable for long-term in situ
conservation.
(viii) Data synthesis. The products that synthesise the data collated include the
ecogeographic database (which contains raw data), the conspectus (that
summarizes all data collated for each CWR) and the report (which interprets
the data obtained).
Box 32. Factors to take into consideration when using ex situ data
Care must be taken when interpreting information on current germplasm
conserved ex situ. In many cases the coordinates are wholly or partly missing,
imprecise or wrong. Moreover, the material held might be incorrectly identified, it
might not be representative of the genetic diversity of the sampled population, it
might be duplicated in several institutions giving a false idea of the actual genetic
diversity being conserved, it may for various reasons be unavailable to potential
users, some collections might not be efficiently managed and therefore records
may contain errors, and the germplasm might not be managed to international
gene bank standards. The requirement for germplasm users to routinely sign
Material Transfer Agreements as part of ITPGRFA obligations may for certain
uses (e.g. commercial breeding companies) limit access to material as the user
may not wish to draw attention to the material they are accessing from gene
banks.
Source: Maxted et al. (1995), Hijmans et al. (1999).
A.6.3. Examples and applied use
Part of the process of selecting priority CWR for conservation action involves the
collation of existing information on the relative degree of threat to the CWR in the
national checklist (see section A4.2). At this stage, it is rarely the case that
resources would be available to undertake novel threat assessment of all the CWR
in the checklist; however, once the priority CWR have been selected on the basis
of their utilization potential and existing information on their relative threatened
status (whether based on published Red List assessments or using proxy measures
such as known pressures on their habitats) of priority taxa for which the
threatened status is currently unknown may be undertaken. This will help to
identify taxa in greatest need of immediate conservation action, understand more
about their specific conservation requirements, and establish a baseline for
monitoring their threatened status over time.
The assessment of threat to diversity can be carried out at two levels: the
individual taxon level (commonly species but also at infra-specific level) and the
genetic level. Assessing the threatened status of individual taxa can assist in
species prioritization for conservation―the most threatened species having higher
conservation priority. Further, threats to a specific region may be assessed in
relation to conservation planning (i.e. to identify areas with high numbers of
threatened CWR), but in this case it would require undertaking a large amount of
individual species assessments and comparing the levels of threats in different
regions as there is no means of assessing all the species together in a particular
area.
At the genetic level, genetic erosion and pollution threatening CWR should be
examined because it can eventually lead to population and even taxon extinction.
A decrease in genetic diversity availability means that genes and alleles will not
be available for future exploitation which will obviously have an impact on future
food security. Additionally, the loss of genetic diversity implies an inability of taxa
to adapt to the rapid changes in environmental conditions the planet is
undergoing and thus the lack of availability of particular adaptive elements of
gene pools to develop new crop varieties able to withstand these new conditions.
The IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria have been widely used (see
http://www.iucnredlist.org/) for assessing species’ extinction risk (or threatened
status). They were developed to improve objectivity and transparency in the threat
assessment process, and therefore to improve consistency and understanding
among users. Assessment of the threatened status of species using the IUCN Red
List Categories and Criteria is essentially a two-step process58:
1. Data of seven types are collated and documented: (i) taxonomic; (ii) distribution;
(iii) population; (iv) habitat and ecology; (v) use and trade; (vi) threats; and (vii)
conservation actions (see Box 35). These data are gathered from a number of
sources, including taxon experts, published and grey literature, databases and
websites.
2. The taxon is evaluated against the IUCN Red List Criteria and the Red List
Category is selected.
There are five main Red List Criteria: (A) population reduction, (B) geographic
range (see Box 35), (C) small population size and decline, (D) very small or
restricted population and (E) quantitative analysis indicating the probability of
extinction. Each main criterion includes a number of sub-criteria against which
the species is evaluated (Table 3). If the species meets the criteria in at least one of
the main classes, it is assigned one of the threatened categories, Critically
Endangered (CR), Endangered (EN) or Vulnerable (VU). If the species meets the
criteria in more than one main class, it is assigned the highest category of threat
but the less threatened category according to the other criterion or criteria is also
documented. If the species does not meet any of the criteria A–E needed to
evaluate it as threatened, another category is selected; these are Extinct (EX),
Extinct in the Wild (EW), Regionally Extinct (RE), Near Threatened (NT), Least
Concern (LC), Data Deficient (DD) or Not Applicable (NA) (for definitions of the
categories, see IUCN, 2001). Figure 12 is a schematic representation of the IUCN
Red List Categories.
Box 35. Summary of data types collated to undertake CWR red list
assessments
Taxonomy
Nomenclature (taxon name, authority, synonyms etc.).
Recent taxonomic changes, any current taxonomic doubts or debates about the
validity or identity of the species, or issues of synonymy.
Note of any subspecific taxa.
Crop(s) the species is related to (common and scientific names) and
information on the degree of relationship of the wild relative to the crop (where
known) using the Gene Pool concept (Harlan and de Wet 1971) or Taxon Group
concept (Maxted et al. 2006).
Distribution and occurrence
A summary of the current information available for the geographic range of
the species.
58
Kell et al. 2012
Country occurrences (and sub-national unit(s) where applicable) recorded
using built-in descriptors in IUCN’s Species Information Service (SIS).
Extent of occurrence and/or area of occupancy (see Box 36).
A map showing the distribution of the species.
Population
A summary of the information available for size and trend (i.e., increasing,
decreasing or stable) of the overall population of the species. If the population
is severely fragmented, this is also recorded.
Information about sizes and trends of subpopulations or populations of
subspecific taxa, or trends in particular areas of the species’ range can also be
included when available.
Where no quantitative information on population sizes or trends are available,
if possible it is noted whether the species is common, abundant, or rare, etc. If
there really is no information at all about the population, this should be noted.
Habitats and ecology
A summary account of the suitable habitats and ecological requirements of the
species, highlighting any potential traits that may of interest for crop
improvement (e.g., drought resistance, salt tolerance).
Comments on the area, extent and/or quality of habitat; in particular, whether
the habitat is thought to be stable or declining.
The habitat(s) in which the species occurs are also documented using IUCN’s
Habitats Classification Scheme.
Use and trade
A summary account of the information available for any utilization and/or
trade of the taxon (local, national and international trade).
A note of any known or potential uses of the species as a gene donor for crop
improvement.
Threats
Major threats that have affected the species in the past, those that are affecting
the species now, or those that are likely to affect the species in the future.
The main reason for the threat, the scale of the threat, and the stress placed on
the species are also recorded where the information is available.
Threats are also documented using IUCN’s Threats Classification Scheme.
Conservation
Conservation actions currently in place (if any) and realistic actions needed to
mitigate the threats causing declines (if any). This includes information on
both in situ and ex situ conservation measures.
Conservation actions are also documented using IUCN’s Conservation Actions
Classification Scheme.
Source: Adapted from Kell et al. (2012)
Extinct (EX)
Vulnerable (VU)
(Evaluated)
Box 36. Geographic range measurements used in IUCN Red List Criterion B
Location
“The term ‘location’ defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which
a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present.
The size of the location depends on the area covered by the threatening event and
may include part of one or many subpopulations. Where a taxon is affected by
59
IUCN (2001)
60
IUCN (2001)
more than one threatening event, location should be defined by considering the
most serious plausible threat.”
Extent of occurrence (EOO)
“Extent of occurrence is defined as the area contained within the shortest
continuous imaginary boundary which can be drawn to encompass all the known,
inferred or projected sites of present occurrence of a taxon, excluding cases of
vagrancy. This measure may exclude discontinuities or disjunctions within the
overall distributions of taxa (e.g. large areas of obviously unsuitable habitat).
Extent of occurrence can often be measured by a minimum convex polygon (the
smallest polygon in which no internal angle exceeds 180 degrees and which
contains all the sites of occurrence).” (See Figure below).
Area of occupancy (AOO)
“Area of occupancy is defined as the area within its 'extent of occurrence' (see
above), which is occupied by a taxon, excluding cases of vagrancy. The measure
reflects the fact that a taxon will not usually occur throughout the area of its extent
of occurrence, which may contain unsuitable or unoccupied habitats. In some
cases, (e.g. irreplaceable colonial nesting sites, crucial feeding sites for migratory
taxa) the area of occupancy is the smallest area essential at any stage to the
survival of existing populations of a taxon. The size of the area of occupancy will
be a function of the scale at which it is measured, and should be at a scale
appropriate to relevant biological aspects of the taxon, the nature of threats and
the available data.” (See Figure below).
To take this into account, the Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria
at Regional Levels61 were developed to re-assess the species’ risk of extinction in a
particular region62 within the light of its overall distribution. However, when the
regional population is isolated from conspecific populations, global criteria can be
used without modification. The regional categories are the same as the global but
there are two additional categories: Regionally Extinct (RE) and Not Applicable
61
IUCN (2003)
62
‘Region’ is defined by IUCN (2003) as any sub‐global geographically defined area (e.g.
continent, country, or province).
(NA). The category NA is applied for species whose population in the region only
marginal or when a species is considered not to be native to the region. The
regional assessments are the result of downgrades (or very rarely upgrades) from
global assessments and they are based on a series of questions essentially
concerning conspecific populations outside the region and the status of regional
populations as sinks.
63
From Magos Brehm et al. (2008b)
64
“The term ‘location’ defines a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening
event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present. The size of the location depends on the area
covered by the threatening event and may include part of one or many subpopulations. Where a taxon
is affected by more than one threatening event, location should be defined by considering the most
serious plausible threat.” IUCN (2001)
Box 37. Alternative methods for threat assessment
The fact that IUCN Red List Assessment is so widely applied indicates its success,
however it must be admitted that a significant amount of data is required to make
a publishable assessment. The required data is by definition more readily
available for highly studied species and for species found in areas where the flora
is less well known applying the IUCN Red List Criteria is challenging or
impossible. But these may be the species that most require Red Listing to aid
conservation planning. Therefore where there are insufficient data available to
assess a species using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria, alternative
methods may be used.
An alternative approach was given by Burgman et al. (1995; 2000) who used the
quantification of the number of observations (both herbarium specimens and
germplasm accessions) in order to give an approximation of the taxon
vulnerability assessment. However, their work was based on the assumption that
threat and rates of material collection were directly related, which might not
reflect the actual threat situation. Salem (2003) scored different attributes (status,
commonness, life form and use) in order to calculate the conservation values for
each species. The author then assigned a relative conservation rank to each taxon
and calculated an average conservation value for the overall species within
particular PA in order to establish priorities to allocate conservation efforts. While
Maxted et al. (2004) used a point scoring method based on several criteria: rarity,
distributional range, gross representation in ex situ collections, geographic
coverage of ex situ collections, taxon coverage of ex situ collections, taxon utility,
and taxon extinction assessment (based on Burgman et al. 1995).
Most recently Miller et al. (2012) compared two alternative methods to full IUCN
Red List Assessment. The first NY method use the available georeferenced data to
calculate the Extent of Occurrence (EOO) for all plant species in Puerto Rico,
excluding unsuitable habitats like lakes, then all species with an EOO greater than
20,000km2 (IUCN upper limit for a vulnerability assessment) were assigned to the
‘‘Not At Risk’’ category, and excluded from further study. For species with EOO
values below the 20,000 km2 threshold all specimens were georeferenced, so the
georeferencing of common species was avoided. After georeferencing, EOO
values were recalculated, and those species with EOO values above 20,000 km2
were considered ‘‘Not At Risk’’ and if EOO’s were still less than 20,000 km2
species were categorized as ‘‘At Risk.’’ Thus the ‘‘At Risk’’ species that would
considered threatened under IUCN’s criterion B1. The second US method
included four steps: Step one analyses the age of collections to determine how
recently occurrence is documented, if a species has not been collected since 1900
it is considered to be “At Risk”. Step two assess geographic distribution by
determining if species are known from six or more provinces or municipalities
with an area greater than 9,000 km2, or smaller individual islands and those
known from six or more locations are considered to be ‘‘Not At Risk’’, and
remaining species documented from five or fewer locations continue on to step
three. Step three assess rarity from the comparative abundance of herbarium
specimens, determining whether a given species is represented by less than or
equal to the median number of 28 specimens per species, so if a species is known
from 28 or fewer specimens then it is ‘‘At Risk,’’ and if known from more than 28
specimens, it is analysed in step four. Step four assesses decline of a species by
determining whether the species is known from less than or equal to the median
number of 7 specimens collected since 1st January 1960 then the species may be
in decline and is considered ‘‘At Risk’’. The authors conclude that both methods
are likely to over-estimate threat but while not replacing IUCN Red List
Assessment do provide a quick, easy to apply methodology where full assessment
datasets are and are likely to remain unavailable.
The process of novel threat assessment of CWR essentially consists of two main
steps: (i) collation of relevant information for the assessment (see Box 35), (ii)
evaluation of the taxon against the IUCN Red List Criteria and selection of the Red
List Category. If the taxon is being assessed at regional (not global) level, a third
step is to assess whether it is necessary to downgrade (or rarely to upgrade) the
taxon’s Red List Category (see Figure 13).
COLLATE TAXON
INFORMATION:
Enough information?
NO YES
Taxon occurs in
other countries?
2003 IUCN REGIONAL
ASSESSMENT
YES
A.7.2. Methodology
Before undertaking Red List assessments using the IUCN Red List Categories and
Criteria, users are advised to consult the IUCN Red List website for detailed
information about the assessment process:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/assessment-process. A
range of training materials are also available at:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/red-list-training. The basic
process of undertaking Red List assessments is outlined below.
(i) Collate taxon information. A literature, database, website, expert, herbarium
and gene bank survey is undertaken in order to collect data on distribution,
population size and trends, biology and ecology, habitat, conservation status,
threats, etc. If needed and possible, field data should also be obtained.
(ii) Evaluation of the taxon against the IUCN Red List Criteria65 and selection of
the Red List Category. If the compiled data are insufficient to make a
reasoned judgement about the threatened status of a taxon, the taxon is
assessed as Data Deficient (DD). These species should be prioritised for
further study in order to gather the required data. See ‘Additional materials
and resources’ for tools that can be used to estimate some of the parameters
needed to carry out Red List assessments.
(iii) For regional assessments (e.g., national assessments of non-endemic
species): collate relevant information about populations of the species in
neighbouring countries. Information may be sourced from Red List
assessments and conservation status data from the neighbouring countries,
or from expert knowledge and available literature about the taxon. For a
regional Red List assessment the taxon is subjected to a series of questions
which aim to determine whether this taxon’s Red List Category should
remain the same, be downgraded or (rarely) upgraded from the global
assessment (see Figure 13). For detailed guidance on the information
required to undertake a regional Red List assessment, see Table 3 ‘Checklist
for judging whether extra-regional populations may affect the extinction risk
of the regional population’ and Figure 14 ‘Conceptual scheme of the
procedure for assigning an IUCN Red List Category at the regional level’ in
the IUCN Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional
Levels: Version 3.066. For plant populations, in most cases a regional
assessment can be based on expert knowledge or on general knowledge of
the taxon’s breeding and dispersal system, combined with its distribution in
the region.
Global Red List assessments (e.g., assessments of national endemic species) can
be submitted for publication in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (see
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/assessment-process).
IUCN has developed the Species Information Service (SIS), which is web
application and standalone database for conducting and managing species
assessments for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. The system is intended
for use by IUCN SSC Specialist Group members and other IUCN partners working
on global Red List assessments as well as regional assessment initiatives led by
IUCN. As such, access to SIS is controlled but where possible use of SIS will
facilitate Red List assessment. For further information about using SIS, users
should consult the IUCN Red List website where the relevant contact details can
be found: www.iucnredlist.org/
65
Available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical‐documents/categories‐and‐criteria
66
IUCN (2003)
Box 38. Use of herbarium data in red listing
Application of the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) requires
the application of ‘the best available evidence’. Often, for plants herbarium and
gene bank collections provide the only source of information for the threat
assessment and must therefore qualify as ‘best available evidence’ (Willis et al.
2003), even though they can provide little help in estimating population changes
over time. Schatz et al. (2000) and Golding (2002) consider that these data are
sufficiently reliable to enable conservation decisions. However, information
provided by specimens can result in inconsistent Red List classifications because
of the uncertainty associated with population and distribution parameters that
arise from the decision rules of the IUCN Red List (IUCN 1994, 2001).
Information used in Red List assessments is interpreted from locality and habitat
information contained on specimen labels to make best estimates, inferences and
projections regarding distribution ranges, scarcity and declines of species. When
limited information is available, data often need to be extrapolated in order to
make informed estimates, inferences and projections (Golding 2004). On the other
hand, while collections made over the last 50 to 60 years usually provide data
about scientific name, locality, habitat, ecology, date of collection, collector name
and collector number, the historical specimens (before or early 20th century) may
only contain few hand written details of the plant name, collector and locality and
therefore may be of limited value to conservation assessments. MacDougall et al.
(1998) refer to herbarium specimen sheets as a qualitative rather than quantitative
data source. Locality coordinate data acquired from herbarium specimen data will
often only provide an approximation of species distribution (Willis et al. 2003).
Therefore use of specimen passport information from a single population
sampling should be regarded as provisional because it can result in an inaccurate
assignment of Red List statuses of poorly known species, and consequently,
influence conservation recommendations (Golding 2004). But despite the
uncertainty these can be a good start in assessing species extinction risk.
Can a neighbouring
population rescue the regional
Is the regional population a sink?
population should it decline?
Figure 44. Basic scheme of how to undertake a regional Red List assessment67.
67
From Magos Brehm et al. (2008b) and adapted from IUCN (2003)
proposed by Maxted et al. (1995) and aimed at drafting the preliminary
distribution of the target taxa as well as to plan the timetable and routes for field
studies. Data collected during field surveys included: latitude, longitude, altitude,
site description (including administrative unit and nearest settlement),
conservation status of the area, average density (number of plants per unit of
surface), approximate area occupied by each subpopulation, plant community,
current and potential threats, growth stage and soil characteristics. The IUCN
Red List Categories and Criteria (IUCN 2001) and the IUCN Guidelines for
Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional Levels (IUCN 2003). Area of
occupancy (AOO) was generally calculated using a grid size of 4 km2 except for
those species known to have very small populations and limited range distribution
in the country where a grid size of 1 km2 was used. The result showed four
threatened species: Ae. mutica Boiss. – CR, Ae. crassa Boiss. – CR or Ex(R)?, Ae.
neglecta Req. ex Bertol. – EN, Ae. biuncialis Vis. – EN, Ae. columnaris Zhuk. – NT,
Ae. triuncialis L. – LC, Ae. cylindrica Host – LC, Ae. tauschii Coss. – LC’ and Ae.
umbellulata Zhuk. – DD
Source: Haruntyunyan et al. (2010)
‘European Red List of Vascular Plants’ which include CWR (Bilz et al. 2011).
There is now an extensive literature associated with gap analysis which essentially
identifies areas in which selected elements of biodiversity are under-
represented69. Nevertheless, it is almost entirely restricted to identifying gaps in
habitat or ecosystem conservation, not gaps within existing species or genetic
diversity conservation. The use of this technique to identify gaps in networks of
protected habitats for in situ conservation of genetic resources, namely for CWR,
has already been cited70. A systematic gap analysis methodology for identifying
gaps in species or genetic diversity conservation has been developed and
illustrated with the case study for African Vigna wild relatives and LR which
aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of current in situ and ex situ conservation,
identifying the ‘gaps’, hence assisting the development of conservation strategies
for African Vigna genetic resources71. More recently, an ex situ gap analysis
methodology based on GIS tools has been developed for crop gene pools72.
The results of genetic diversity and ecogeographic analysis, as well as novel threat
assessment (see sections 5, 6 and 7 respectively) provide the information needed
to identify gaps in current in situ and ex situ conservation actions for CWR. Figure
5 summarises how these analyses feed into a gap analysis study.
Conservation gaps (both in situ and ex situ) can be detected at different levels: (i)
Individual CWR taxon level (CWR taxa not conserved versus taxa conserved), (ii)
Ecogeographic level (for a particular CWR, areas/environmental conditions not
covered by in situ or ex situ conservation activities versus those covered), (iii)
Trait level (specific CWR populations that present a particular interesting trait
that are not conserved versus populations with that same trait that are), (iv)
Genetic diversity (specific CWR populations that are genetically important that
are not conserved versus those that are). The level(s) at which gap analysis can be
undertaken depends on the types of data available for the study. It should be
highlighted that genetic data are not always available and that the collation of
information de novo may not be possible due to resource limitations. Therefore, in
68
Noss and Cooperrider (1999), Eken et al. (2004), Rodrigues et al. (2004), Langhammer et al. (2007)
69
E.g. Margules et al. (1988), Margules (1989), Margules and Pressey (2000), Allen et al. (2001),
Balmford (2003), Brooks et al. (2004), Dietz and Czech (2005), Riemann and Ezcurra (2005)
70
See Ingram and Williams (1993)
71
See Maxted et al. (2008b)
72
Bioversity International et al. (2009) and also see R‐package GapAnalysis available at: http://r‐forge.r‐
project.org/R/?group_id=645
GAP ANALYSIS
Figure 15. Ecogeographic, genetic and threat assessment aiding gap analysis
Priority CWR taxa Targeted areas of occurrence and Targeted populations with particular
environmental conditions of priority CWR trait/genetic diversity
73
Bioversity International et al. (2009)
Trait level: whether specific CWR populations that contain a particular interesting
trait (e.g. high gluten content, etc.) are conserved in situ/ex situ adequately.
(i) In situ: Compare CWR natural distribution together with trait diversity data
and where it is actively conserved will help target new in situ activities.
GAPS = specific CWR populations with the trait of interest not conserved in
situ.
(ii) Ex situ: Compare CWR natural distribution together with trait information
and where it has been previously collected will help target further
collections. GAPS = specific CWR populations with the trait of interest not
conserved ex situ.
GIS-based predictive characterization can be used to identify those populations
that are likely to contain desirable traits (e.g. insect pest resistance). Focused
74
Ramírez‐Villegas J. Gap analysis. Available from:
http://www.slideshare.net/laguanegna/castaneda2010‐gapanalysis [Accessed January 2012].
Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS) is a predictive characterisation
technique and can be used in this context. The basic FIGS approach is as follows:
Compile the geographic distribution of the target CWR;
Gather the available evaluation data regarding the biotic or abiotic trait of
interest and georeference;
Gather environmental information (e.g. climate, soil, elevation, topography)
(see ‘Additional materials and resources’ for sources of data) and extract
environmental data for each CWR accession/population using a GIS
software (e.g. DIVA-GIS);
Utilise the existing characterization and evaluation data to identify sites
where required variation exists;
Produce site profiles identified above in terms of environmental, ecological
and any other relevant data;
Look for similar environmental profiles amongst other sites and develop a
sampling strategy using clustering, principal component analysis etc.;
Identify whether ex situ accessions are available or active on-farm
conservation is carried out and whether it is necessary to collect de novo
from the identified sites in order to complete the ex situ collection or to
target populations for in situ conservation.
An alternative FIGS approach can be used to target abiotic traits which do not
make use of existing trait evaluation data but is based on collecting information
on the environmental conditions most likely to support the adaptive development
of the target traits75. This approach can be used when insufficient trait evaluation
data are available for the analysis.
75
Thormann (2012)
Genetic level: whether specific CWR populations that contain genetic diversity of
interest (e.g. high genetic diversity) are not conserved in situ/ex situ.
(i) In situ. A comparison between CWR natural distribution together with
genetic diversity data and which populations are actively conserved will help
target new in situ activities. GAPS = specific populations with genetic
diversity not conserved in situ.
(ii) Ex situ. A comparison between CWR natural distribution together with
genetic diversity data and where the taxon has been previously collected will
help target further collections. GAPS = specific populations with genetic
diversity not conserved ex situ.
The following should be noted while in situ gap analysis is being carried out:
If the species distribution locations have different levels of accuracy, only
the most accurate should be used;
If there is no digitized information on the distribution of PA or regarding
the taxa that occur within them, then species distribution modelling could
be performed in order to obtain maps of predicted distribution (Figure 19).
Field confirmation should be carried out in order to know which taxa occur
within PA. It should be noted that field confirmation needs to consider
access permission in formal PA, private land and ethnological important
areas (e.g. “sacred forests” or Indian reservations).
Regardless of the level of in situ gap analysis (individual CWR,
ecogeographic, trait or genetic level), it should also identify the
populations that: (i) do not occur within PA (GAPS = specific populations
not conserved in situ), and (ii) do occur in PA but that are only passively
protected without any specific management (GAPS = specific populations
within PA but not actively conserved in situ) (Figure ).
Species natural
distribution
FILTER
(level accuracy 1 to 3)
National network
of PA
Country’s base
map
QUERY
(locations within PA)
Passive in situ
conservation in PA
YES NO
IN SITU ‘GAP’
Active in situ Passive in situ
IDENTIFIED (lack of
conservation conservation
management)
Individual CWR/
YES
ecogeographic/trait/genetic
diversity conserved in situ? NO
IN SITU ‘ABSENSCE’
YES IDENTIFIED (CWR not
present where predicted
to occur)
NO
NO FURTHER IN SITU
CONSERVATION
NEEDED
IN SITU ‘GAPS’ IDENTIFIED
(under‐represented
CWR/ecogeographic/trait/
genetic diversity)
Aegilops cylindrica Host, a wild relative of wheat (Triticum spp.), in the Erebuni
State Reserve (Armenia), a genetic reserve dedicated to the conservation of wild
wheat, including Triticum urartu Tumannian ex Gandilyan, T. boeoticum Boiss., T.
araraticum Jakubz and Aegilops spp. (photo: René Hauptvogel).
What are the in situ conservation goals of a National management plan for
CWR conservation?
A National management plan for CWR conservation aims in part to establish a
national network of in situ conservation sites where long-term active conservation
(in order to safeguard their genetic diversity) and sustainable use of CWR is
carried out as a contribution to national, regional and global food security. Active
in situ conservation is backed-up with the periodic resampling of CWR
populations for ex situ collections, which also helps promote sustainable
exploitation.
76
Maxted et al. (2008e)
77
Passive versus active conservation. Passive conservation means that a species and the genetic
diversity within it is not being monitored and managed, while active conservation is when a species and
the genetic diversity within it is efficiently conserved through long‐term monitoring and management of
populations. An example of passive conservation is when a particular taxon occurs within a PA but
without any formal conservation or management plan.
establishing CWR genetic reserves requires close collaboration between agro-
biodiversity and PA conservationists but in too many countries the two
communities work independently without meaningful collaboration and so there
is no administrative route for genetic reserve establishment.
CWR in situ conservation outside of existing PA is a possible yet until now largely
underexplored alternative to formally establishing genetic reserves. Suitable sites
may include roadsides, field margins, orchards and even fields managed using
traditional agro-silvicultural practices. In each case of these cases the sites are not
managed for biodiversity conservation, and the occurrence of CWR populations is
purely incidental. If these sites are to be considered suitable for sustainable
conservation, the management they currently receive and that has permitted the
existence of a healthy CWR population must be consistent over an extended time
frame. Examples of the additional threats faced by non-protected area sites
include: the widening of roads, the scrubbing out of hedgerows or orchards,
cutting of roadside verges at the wrong time of the year, the introduction of
herbicides rather than physical weed control, or even the physical control of weeds
earlier in the season. To ensure the long-term survival of the CWR population it
would be advisable to reach a management agreement between the CWR
conservationists and the non-conventional protected area site owner and / or
manager to ensure that current site management is maintained and CWR
diversity negatively impacted. As by definition the areas outside PAs are
primarily managed for reasons other than conservation, the management
interventions at the site are likely to be minimal; it may simply consist of
maintaining the current management and agreeing not to make significant
changes to the site management without discussion with the conservation agency.
The latter will need however to routinely monitor the site in order to ensure
efficient management of the target CWR populations. Thus informal in situ
conservation offers an opportunity to conserve populations or even taxa that may
otherwise not be conserved and it obviously is a clear way of integrating
agrobiodiversity conservation into normal community activities – the local
community however will need to engage with the conservation at an early stage
and on a continuing basis.
Therefore, in situ conservation of CWR should be planned both inside and outside
of PA. There will be added conservation value to genetic reserves and informal
CWR management sites if their overall management is coordinated and organised
into an in situ CWR network. National networks could themselves contribute to
regional and global CWR networks that together maximise global, regional and
national CWR diversity conservation. In turn the sites and networks should be
linked to systematic ex situ conservation as a back-up for the in situ conservation
but also as a means of promoting greater sustainable exploitation of the conserved
CWR resource.
A.9.2. Methodology
(i) Review of in situ conservation gaps. In situ conservation gaps that resulted
from the in situ gap analysis should be the foundation of the planning of the
national in situ CWR network of genetic reserves and informal CWR
management sites to conserve priority CWR diversity (see Section 8).
(ii) Preliminary selection of in situ CWR conservation sites.
In situ CWR conservation sites. A network of genetic reserves and informal
CWR management sites can be established based on the minimum number
of locations that contain the maximum sample of CWR diversity, either by:
(i) identifying CWR ‘hotspots’ (areas with high CWR richness) or (ii) by
identifying the minimum number of sites needed to conserve all priority
CWR as identified using an iterative process of complementarity
analysis78,79. Where the sites overlap with existing PA genetic reserves
would usually be established and where sites do not overlap with existing
PA then informal CWR management sites could be established or novel PA
established.
‘Hotspot’ analysis: identifies one or more locations that have significantly
higher levels of CWR diversity than other locations and which together
complement each other in terms of maximising CWR diversity inclusion
(i.e. two CWR-rich sites could be identified that contain the exact same
CWR, therefore it would not be efficient to actively conserve both sites).
Having made this point, where genetic diversity within CWR is considered,
it may be worth conserving both or multiple sites containing an identical
array of CWR taxa if it is known or predicted by ecogeographic and/or
genetic diversity analysis that the samples of genetic diversity contained in
each site complements rather duplicates an individual site’s genetic
diversity. ‘Hotspot’ analysis can be carried out using DIVA-GIS
(http://www.diva-gis.org/).
Complementarity analysis: identifies the minimum number of sites needed
to conserve all priority CWR. The analysis is based on the division of the
target area into grid squares (the grid square size is set relative to the
overall map scale). The first selected grid square is the area that contains
the highest concentrations of the target CWR and the second selected grid
square is the one with the highest concentrations of CWR not present in
the first selected grid square. This selection process is repeated until the
selection of further grid squares would only duplicate taxa already included
in the previously selected ones69, 70. Note that some grid squares may not
include existing protected area so informal CWR management sites may be
established outside of the PA network80 or novel PA designated.
Complementarity analysis can be carried out using DIVA-GIS
(http://www.diva-gis.org/).
Using both of these approaches, the most common CWR are likely to be
duplicated in the selected sites. With the goal of maximising the
conservation of genetic diversity, a certain level duplication of CWR taxa is
essential to ensure maximum genetic diversity representation, as long as
the sites duplicating taxa have complementary genetic diversity. This
approach can be used to identify diverse and complementary areas
regarding other types of data (e.g. genetic or trait diversity), or used to
78
Rebelo (1994a, 1994b)
79
Rebelo (1992)
80
Maxted et al. (2008e)
refine the first complementarity analysis based on geographic data. Two
areas may have the same number of CWR (hence both are priorities for
conservation), but the CWR in one area may be genetically similar to
existing sites while in the second area they may be very different, so the
second site would be selected.
Complementarity analysis is recommended over the hotspot approach
because it allows the establishment of a network of in situ conservation
sites that covers most (if not all) target CWR.
Single-CWR conservation sites. If we look at particular traits/genetic
diversity or even ecogeographic diversity, then the multi-CWR
conservation site approach is unlikely to broadly represent the diversity for
each CWR, meaning that we would need to either look at a single CWR
level and choose the sites that are more diverse or use a combination of the
single and multi-CWR conservation site approaches. The main objective
for setting up an in situ conservation site is to ensure that maximum
genetic diversity of the target CWR gene pool is captured in the system.
Therefore, if financial and human resources are available, a single-CWR
site for exceptionally important CWR population could be established
based on geographic location or other types of data (e.g. particular traits or
genetic diversity, ecogeographic diversity data). It is likely that if an
effective informal in situ conservation site is established the running costs
would be less than a more formal genetic reserve, so increasing the
justification for single CWR targeted conservation.
REVIEW OF IN SITU
CONSERVATION GAPS
YES NO
PRELIMINARY SELECTION
In situ conservation gaps In combination with
OF IN SITU SITES
COMPLEMENTARITY ‘HOTSPOT’
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
81
Lawrence and Marshall (1997).
Box 46. Site selection for the conservation of CWR and LR in Vietnam
A GEF project “In situ Conservation of Native Landraces and their Wild Relatives
in Vietnam” ran from 2002 until 2005 and targeted the conservation of six native
LR (rice, taro, tea, mung bean, Citrus spp., litchi and longan) and CWR in three
areas (the Northern Mountains, Northern Midlands, and Northwest Mountains) in
Vietnam and provided technical support to help farmers in effective conservation,
development, sustainable management and use of their native LR and CWR. Sites
for the conservation of LR and CWR were one of the outputs of this project. The
selection of these was carried out in two steps:
1. To identify genetically important areas based on:
presence and genetic diversity of target species,
presence of endemic species,
overall floristic species richness,
presence of high numbers of other economic species,
presence of natural and/or semi-natural ecosystems,
presence of traditional agricultural systems,
protection status and/or existence of conservation-oriented farmers or
communities that manage a number of species and varieties.
2. To select specific sites and communities within larger genetic reserves where
socio-economic conditions indicated good prospects for on-farm agrobiodiversity
conservation activities; workshops, stakeholder consultations, and meetings
between NGOs, local institutes, and farmer groups aided this process; finally, the
community receptivity to sharing traditional knowledge and practices that
promote in situ conservation was assessed at each site.
The selected sites thus encompass a range of topographic, climatic and socio-
economic conditions (e.g., proximity to markets and community-level
associations), species and LR.
Eight genetic reserves were selected; two of them include more than one
conservation site (in a cultivated ecosystem and an associated site in an adjoining
protected area), and the six remaining reserves consist only of cultivated
ecosystems. Most of the targeted sites are both species diverse, maintain more
than one crop and are LR diverse within target crops.
Source: http://www.undp.org.vn/projects/vie01g35/index.htm
Potential in situ
conservation sites (genetic Integration with
national/international agri‐
reserves and informal
environmental schemes
CWR management sites)
Alternative genetic
Ensure local communities
reserve site
value local CWR diversity
NO YES
CWR, Nature reserve, Vrþok near µtúrovo, SVK, 200 (photo: Pavol
Hauptvogel)
A.10.2. Methodology
(i) ‘Ground truth’ potential in situ conservation sites. Having established the in
situ conservation goals, an ordered list of potential in situ conservation sites
(genetic reserves and informal CWR management sites) will be available; an
effective short-list of potential sites. However, there may be various reasons
why even the highest priority potential sites may practically be unsuitable,
e.g. CWR population presence, land ownership, current land use and whether
inside or outside a PA, PA status, potential threats, local community
unsupportive, etc. Establishing the list of potential in situ conservation sites
is likely to have been achieved remotely from the actual sites, the techniques
used may predict that target CWR populations are present but the sites must
be ‘ground truthed’, checked to see if the prediction matches the reality at
the site. If the target CWR population is absent or below the minimum
viable population then alternative sites may be preferable. Understanding
whether the site is publically or privately owned is likely to be an important
consideration because if the site is publically owned it is more likely that the
future management of the site can be amended to favour the target CWR
population, particularly if the implementation of the in situ conservation site
fulfils government policy objectives, but if the site is privately owned the
owner may be less amenable to making potential management changes to
the site. Likewise if the site is already under conservation management it
would be easier to amend the site management for genetic CWR
conservation than say were the site being managed for more commercial
purposes. Even if the site is an existing PA the site would have been
established for non-CWR conservation and the objectives of the PA
management may not be amenable to adaptation of CWR conservation, e.g.
the management of large herbivores or coniferous trees is likely to conflict
with herb CWR management. If the CWR conservation is to be successful
then local community support is required. To help ensure support the local
communities should ideally be involved to some extent in the development
and implementation of CWR Action Plans. Agreements with private owners
(e.g. tax incentives) could be made. The provision of government incentives,
if to be used, must be linked to some form of guarantee from the land owner
to ensure CWR diversity thrives, so a management agreement including a
conservation prescription is required in order to ensure CWR are properly
managed but also to recognise the local communities’ role in conserving
such a valuable resource.
(ii) Reformulate the in situ conservation goals (if needed). The ordered list of
potential in situ conservation sites (genetic reserves and informal CWR
management sites) produced as part of the in situ conservation goals but as
mentioned above even the highest priority potential sites may practically be
unsuitable and site further down the ordered list would need to be
considered. Thus the process of selecting in situ sites is pragmatic and
iterative until a list of sites can be agreed to implement genetic reserve and
informal CWR management site based conservation action.
(iii) Production of in situ conservation site action/management plans. The first
step in formulating the revised management plan is to observe the biotic and
abiotic dynamics of the site for both CWR and non-CWR species. A survey of
the species present in the site should be performed to help understand the
ecological interactions within the reserve. A clear conservation goal should
be decided and a means of implementation agreed that may involve some
compromise between the priorities for CWR and non-CWR species
conservation. This then forms the basis of the site action /managements
plans, which will contain information on CWR taxonomy, description, image,
distribution, ecogeography, current conservation status and action, threat
assessment, uses, additional conservation action required, research and
monitoring requirements, and incorporation in existing national or local
conservation initiatives, but perhaps most importantly it summarises the
management interventions recommended for the site and how the CWR are
to be monitored to ensure the management is promoting CWR population
health82. As part of the routine site management there is a need to establish
a monitoring regime, to undertake time series surveys of the target
population to facilitate a review of project interventions (see Section 11.2).
(iv) Ensure the in situ conservation sites comply with (at least) the minimum
quality standards. The quality standards83 for the conservation of CWR in in
situ conservation sites are a useful tool both for practitioners involved in the
design of strategies and management plans for in situ conservation and the
PA managers interested in their conservation. The standards have two
levels―the ‘minimum’ and ‘optimal’ quality standards. ‘Minimum’ quality
standards concern those baseline traits required for any genetic reserve to
function and fulfil its conservation objectives, whereas ‘optimal’ quality
standards include a more rigorous set of requirements. Quality standards are
related to (i) the genetic reserves themselves and include traits such as
location, spatial structure, target taxa, populations, and management, (ii) the
PAs selected for the establishment of genetic reserves, and (iii) informal in
situ conservation areas outside of formal PAs.
(v) Integrate in situ conservation priorities with national/international agri-
environmental schemes. The selected in situ sites that now constitute a
national network of genetic reserves and informal CWR management sites
should be integrated with agro-environmental schemes (e.g. such as those
funded by the European Commission or other regional agencies) so that
their management is nationally coordinated and the conservation of the
target CWR is effective. A growing effort to strengthen the relationship
between agriculture and the provision of ecosystem services has been
registered84. In situ and on-farm conservation of PGRFA activities are now
being set up as a result of Payment for Environmental Services (PES)
schemes in an attempt to encourage and reward local communities for their
role in conserving and managing PGRFA for the future; however, the actual
implementation of these schemes remains a significant challenge in many
countries. The National management plan for CWR conservation should also
be integrated into national programmes for the implementation of the CBD
(such as National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs)85, the
82
Maxted et al. (2008)
83
Iriondo et al. (2012)
84
FAO (2009)
85
http://www.cbd.int/nbsap/
ITPGRFA, and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC) through
the appropriate national focal point(s) and the National Plant Conservation
Strategies (which is the basis for national policy), when one exists. Whether
CWR are conserved in situ within PAs or outside of them, it is advisable that
the sites have some form of legal protection to help prevent sudden threats
to conserved populations (e.g., through a dramatic change in land use).
(vi) Ensure local communities value and use their local CWR diversity.
Promoting the involvement of local communities in in situ conservation and
management of CWR is often crucial for conservation to be effective,
especially when in situ conservation sites are located within (or include as
part of) private land. Awareness of the National management plan for CWR
conservation should therefore be raised among the different stakeholders.
These can take the form of local community conservation training
workshops, etc. See A.10.3 Examples and applied use for some examples on
the integration of conservation into local communities and industry.
Finally, it is worth re-stressing that the implementation of specific CWR in situ
conservation sites will ultimately be pragmatic, dictated by the resources available
as well as national and regional level governmental will, and NGO and local
community involvement.
Box 47. Establishment of CWR genetic reserves for cereals, forages and fruit
trees
The conservation and sustainable use of dryland agrobiodiversity project was
funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) between 1999 and 2004. The project aimed at
promoting the community-based in situ conservation and sustainable use of both
LR and CWR of cereals, food and feed legumes, Allium and fruit tree species
originating from Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and Syria. Ecogeographic surveys of
CWR were conducted for the target species across the four countries and 24 key
project sites (genetic reserves) were identified for further surveying of
agrobiodiversity, potential for long-term in situ conservation and site threats. The
surveys described the dynamics of site vegetation, collated species data (e.g.
growth stage, cover/density, health status, etc.), ecology and land use, as well as
identifying which species to monitor for conservation. The species data collated
were then entered in a database and time-series data analysed at country and
regional levels to facilitate site and species management. The database was
installed and used in each country, but maintained by ICARDA, whose staff
periodically update with new data sent by national survey teams.
The main results of CWR surveys showed that there is still a wealth cereals, food
and feed legumes, Allium and fruit tree CWR species in the region but that wealth
is being seriously threatened by over-grazing, changes in agro-silvicultural
practices, quarrying and urbanisation. Local communities see little intrinsic value
in CWR maintenance so there is a need for greater awareness raising of the
broader value of CWR species among communities but where there is no
economic return for farmers and herders from changing their practices national
governments need to the lead in CWR conservation. Further research is required
to demonstrate, if it is the case, which CWR favourable land management would
lead to increased income for farmers and to conservation of target CWR species.
What are the ex situ conservation goals of a National management plan for
CWR conservation?
A National management plan for CWR conservation aims at the development and
implementation of a systematic and complementary action plan for the active
conservation and sustainable use of CWR within a country. This will include
parallel in situ and ex situ conservation action but it is the ex situ collections that
primarily facilitate access to these materials for crop improvement and research.
86
CBD (1992)
Box 52. Ex situ conservation techniques
CWR diversity can be stored as seed, explants, living plants and genomic samples
using the following ex situ techniques:
Seed Storage – The collection of seed samples at one location and their transfer to
a gene bank for storage. The samples are usually dried to suitably low moisture
content and then kept at sub-zero temperatures;
In Vitro Storage – The collection and maintenance of explants (tissue samples) in
a sterile, pathogen-free environment;
Field Gene Bank – The collecting of seed or living material from one location and
its transfer and planting at a second site. Large numbers of accessions of a few
species are usually conserved;
Botanic Garden / Arboretum – The collecting of seed or living material from one
location and its transfer and maintenance at a second location as living plant
collections of species in a garden or for tree species an arboretum. Small numbers
of accessions of a large number of species are usually conserved.
DNA / Pollen Storage – The collecting of DNA or pollen and storage in
appropriate, usually refrigerated, conditions.
Source: Hawkes et al. (2000).
Ex situ conservation?
YES NO
In combination
Ex situ conservation gaps TARGET CWR AND SITES
with
Germplasm collection
Seed cleaning
Seed packaging
Seed viability testing
SEED STORAGE
Seed safty duplication
Germplasm characterisation
and evaluation
Pre‐breeding
GERMPLASM USE
A.11.2. Methodology
(i) Review of ex situ conservation gaps. Ex situ conservation gaps that resulted
from the gap analysis should be the foundation of the planning of the
national ex situ collection programme to ensure systematic ex situ
conservation of priority CWR species (see Section 8). Due to the
potentially very large number of CWR species it is unlikely that sufficient
resources will be available to conserve all national CWR species. As is
mentioned above ex situ collections are often the ‘market stall’ through
which the germplasm user community access the germplasm they require,
therefore another important consideration when formulating the ex situ
collection programme is meeting the users demands. Further ideally the
germplasm curator should anticipate the demand and have germplasm
ready to meet that demand whether as directly sampled germplasm or pre-
bred lines before the user requests the germplasm.
(iii) Gene bank seed processing. Following collection the sample arrives at the
gene bank and is processed in the standard manner, which is likely to
include: seed cleaning (to separate chaff and fruit debris from seed and
ensure the accession is sample of a single species), seed health evaluation
(inspection for seed borne diseases and pests), dehydration (normally to
around 5-6% relative humidity), packaging (which most often take the form
of glass vials, metal cans or laminated aluminium foil packets), registration
(entering an associated record in the seed bank management system and
making the accession available to the users) and storage (usually in a -18°C
cold room). When field collecting CWR species it may not always be
possible to obtain a sufficiently large seed sample to be banked directly so
there may need to be a seed multiplication cycle before the seed can be
processed and incorporated into the gene bank. See ‘Additional materials
and resources’ for detailed gene bank methodologies.
(iv) Post-storage seed care. Once the seed is incorporated into the gene
bank the seeds viability will gradually decrease over time and there will be
a need to extract a sample of seed and test its germination viability at
approximately 10 year intervals. Viability is a measure of how many seeds
are alive and can develop into normal plants. It is usually expressed as
percentage germination and above 75% is an acceptable level of viability.
Viability is usually determined before the seeds are packed and placed into
storage, and subsequently at regular intervals during storage. When
germination falls below 75% the accessions requires regeneration.
The aim of regeneration is to increase the quantity of seed of any accession
but while doing so it is very important to ensure that the original genetic
characteristics of the accession are retained as far as possible. Each
multiplication / regeneration cycle contains hazards to maintenance of the
genetic integrity of the accession, such as: (a)
contamination from foreign pollen during fertilisation, (b) contamination
through seed adulteration during harvesting, threshing and packaging, (c)
changes due to gene mutation, (d) genetic drift due to random loss of
alleles, particularly when regenerating from small numbers of individuals,
and (e) genetic shift due to unconscious natural or artificial selection
(related to diverse environmental conditions during regeneration)87. The
risks involved with regeneration will vary considerably according to the
crop species, but it is also a costly operation, therefore, the most efficient
and cost effective way of maintaining genetic integrity is to keep the
frequency of regeneration to an absolute minimum.
87
Sackville‐Hamilton and Chorlton (1997)
A.11.3. Examples and applied use
Box 54. Lathyrus belinensis: a CWR discovered and almost lost
In 1987 while collecting legume species near Cavus, Antalya province, Turkey a
new species of the genus Lathyrus was discovered and described as Lathyrus
belinensis. The single population was growing alongside a new road that was just
then being cut through fields between Kumluca and Tekirova. The population
appeared to have its greatest concentration in and around an ungrazed village
graveyard in the village of Belin. The new species was most closely related to L.
odoratus (sweet pea), being just as scented as sweet pea but
with more hairy vegetative parts. The most striking and
economically interesting distinguishing feature of L.
belinensis is the flower colour which is yellow with
conspicuous red veins, which contrasts with L. odoratus
flowers which can be purple, blue, pink or cream, but never
yellow. Thus the discovery of L. belinensis was an
opportunity for horticulturalists to breed a yellow sweet
pea―a goal of many contemporary sweet pea breeders.
The type population was found over an area of only 2 km2 and although the
species was published in 1988, no further populations have subsequently been
reported. The only known population was threatened the new road construction
and the planted of conifers at the time of original collection. On returning to
collect more seed in 2010 the original type location had been destroyed by
earthworks associated with the building of a new police station. Although a few
plants were found in the area and seed is held ex situ, the richest area within the
site had been lost. L. belinensis has recently been assessed using IUCN Red List
Criteria as Critically Endangered—the most highly threatened category, only time
will show if field conservation will save this species in the wild!
Maxted (2012)
In terms of CWR monitoring it may occur at three distinct levels (a) monitoring of
specific target CWR populations conserved in situ, either informally or within
formal genetic reserves, (b) monitoring of ex situ conserved accessions, and (c)
monitoring of higher level indicators of CWR conservation. However, there is a
significant literature on CWR monitoring but it nearly all refers to the monitoring
of genetic reserves80 and that will be the main focus of this section.
Once the in situ conservation sites are established, they require regular
monitoring to assess any short and longer term changes in CWR diversity, which
can help form the basis of assessing the effectiveness of the management regime
for maintaining CWR diversity. The monitoring of CWR thus constitutes an
important early warning mechanism for detecting species extinction and genetic
erosion. The results of regular monitoring are used to inform the management
prescriptions of a CWR Action Plan and/or genetic reserve management plan.
Therefore, monitoring schemes should be included in CWR Action Plans and/or in
situ conservation site management plans, and should be initiated immediately
after implementation of the in situ conservation site. The monitoring of CWR can
be measured at two different levels: individual taxa and genetic diversity within
taxa. At the individual taxon level, the development of a monitoring plan
comprises five phases (Figure 9): (i) Identification and selection of the variables to
monitor, (ii) Design of the sampling strategy, (iii) Implementation of a pilot study,
(iv) Data analysis, and (v) Adjustment of the monitoring plan. Ideally as we wish
to promote the conservation of the genetic diversity with CWR taxa it would be
expected that genetic level monitoring would occur sufficiently often to alert the
conservationist to deleterious changes but it has also to be recognised that genetic
monitoring is costly and therefore there is a need to balance regularity of
monitoring against costs89.
88
Iriondo et al. (2008)
89
See Iriondo et al. (2008) for recommendations on how, when and why to use genetic monitoring.
Just placing seed accessions in a gene bank or other genetic resources collection
is the end of the conservation process, the accessions need to be regularly
monitored to ensure it has retained its viability so it can be taken out of the
collection and used. As seeds viability decrease over time seed germination
tested, commonly, at approximately 10 year intervals and if the viability is below
75% the accessions requires regeneration (see Section A11).
The CBD Strategic Plan90 includes SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Relevant and Timely) objectives; meaning that it established desirable outcomes
that can be time-series monitored against key performance indicator to evaluate
their success in achieving the strategic goal and also help identify potential
intermediate actions that will aid goal achievement. Recently, the 1. The Second
Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture was
agreed by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture at its
13th Regular Session in November 2011 to “to review existing indicators and
identify or develop higher-order indicators, which could be in the form of an index
that could enable stakeholders at all levels to effectively monitor the
implementation of Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture”91. A Technical Consultation was held in Madrid, 2012 and
generated a “Revised draft indicators for monitoring the implementation of the
Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture”92.
90
CBD (2010b)
91
CGRFA‐13/11/Report, paragraph 98
92
FAO (2012)
Specifically for CWR these were focused on in situ conservation:
Number of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) surveyed/inventoried
Number of CWR in situ conservation and management actions with
government support
Number of conservation areas with management plans addressing CWR
Number CWR actively managed in situ
But some Targets and Higher-order indicators were also identified for CWR as
follows:
Number of threatened crop germplasm
Number of Crop Wild Relatives surveyed/inventoried
Number of accessions resulting from collecting missions in the reporting
country
Percentage/Number of targeted taxa where a collecting gap exist
Number of taxa conserved ex situ under medium or long term conditions
Number of accessions [with documentation] conserved ex situ under
medium or long term conditions
Number of accessions safety duplicated
Number of accessions in need of regeneration
Percentage of accessions in need of regeneration
Number of accessions of the collection by number of traits characterized
Number of accessions distributed from collections
As can be seen these indicators are designed to be specific in the sense of being
well defined, easily measurable, where the necessary data would be readily
attainable, the data relates clearly the goal and can be periodically assessed to
provide a time-series comparison. When implemented by national PGR
programmes, the programmes can themselves check their compliance with
international conventions / treaties, assess their conservation efficiency and
specifically meet the countries obligation on CWR data reporting to the Global
Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.
Establishment of in situ conservation goals
Implementation Positioning of
of a pilot study
sampling units
Adjustment of
Data analysis
monitoring plan
Recommended
management
changes
CHANGES IN POPULATION
MANAGEMENT
A.12.2. Methodology
The methodology will focus on monitoring CWR populations conserved in situ as
the monitoring of ex situ conserved accessions is covered in the previous section
(see A11) and the monitoring of higher level indicators of CWR conservation is a
relatively novel introduction and tried and tested methodologies are yet to be
available. Also note that whether the monitoring of CWR populations occurs in
formally recognised genetic reserves or an informal in situ conservation area, the
monitoring will still have the same objectives and is likely to be implemented in a
similar manner, as follows:
(i) Identification and selection of the variables to monitor. These variables may
include demographic, ecological and anthropogenic parameters. At this stage, it is
important to take into account parameters such as the life form and breeding
system of the target taxon, as well as the resources available for monitoring.
(ii) Design of the sampling strategy. The design of the sampling strategy (which
involves making decisions on the type, size, number and positioning of the
sampling units and the timing and frequency of sampling93) should be based on a
review of the available literature on the monitoring of taxa with similar life forms
93
Elzinga et al. (2001); Iriondo et al. (2008)
and biological traits, as well as through consultation with conservation
management experts. The monitoring plan should be designed in a way to
detecting changes in the target population but distinguish between significant
biological changes in the population that may negatively impact population health
and normal seasonal variations that need not trigger changes in management
actions.
(iii) Selection and positioning of the sampling units. Sampling can be carried out
using various methods: plot (or quadrat within areas of standard size), transect
(banded transect or intercept - transects sample diversity within a defined
distance either side of a central line, often 1m either side making a 2m wide
transect, while the line intercept samples diversity that actually touches the line)
methods or even monitoring of individual plants (or plant parts) for particular
attributes (e.g. plant height, number of seeds per fruit)94. In an in situ conservation
site, the plot method is most likely to be used with the establishment of permanent
quadrats.
(iv) Positioning of sampling units. It should be random and ideally distributed
throughout the entire area of distribution of the population. Methods of random
sampling include: simple random sampling, systematic sampling and stratified
random sampling95.
(v) Determination of the timing and frequency of monitoring. Populations of
CWR in genetic reserves should be surveyed regularly in order to detect any
changes. Monitoring is commonly most effective when the target species is
flowering or fruiting, as often then they can be easily identified. It also can be
carried out when leaves are unusually coloured or about to fall, or when the
surrounding vegetation does not obscure the target species or other particular
character of the target taxon. Either way, it should be scheduled at the same
phenological time each year to ensure the data are directly comparable between
monitoring events.
The frequency of monitoring (time between surveys) is usually dictated by the
perception the researcher has during the first surveys. However, it depends on the
life form, the expected rate of change, the rarity and trend of the target species, as
well as on the resources available for monitoring. It can be as frequent as every
month (e.g. rare or very threatened annuals) during several growing seasons, or
annually (e.g. annuals) or less frequently (e.g. perennials). Generally, the
monitoring in a newly established reserve is more frequent than in a well-
established one. With time and experience, frequency of monitoring can be
adjusted.
(vi) Implementation of a pilot study. A pilot study should be carried out once the
monitoring scheme has been designed in order to assess how efficient the
94
Iriondo et al. (2008).
95
Simple random sampling involves the selection of combination of sampling units that has the same
probability of being selected, and that the selection of one sampling unit does not affect the selection of
any other. Systematic sampling involves the collection of samples at regular (in time and space)
intervals. Stratified random sampling involves dividing the population into two or more groups prior to
sampling, where groups within the same group are very similar and simple random samples are taken
within each group (Iriondo et al. 2008).
experimental design is and whether the field techniques are efficient, before the
implementation of a long term monitoring strategy.
(vii) Data analysis. The results of the pilot study should be analysed in order to
detect possible problems with the monitoring design and field methodologies and
if necessary adjust them to ensure that the scheme will detect changes that may
indicate a decline in the size and/or genetic diversity of the population.
(viii) Adjustment of monitoring plan. Frequently, refinement of the monitoring
plan is needed. Sample size, position of sampling units, etc. may be inadequate to
detect meaningful changes in the population so they need to be adjusted.
However, changes to the monitoring regime may negatively impact data
comparison, so any changes need to be considered, possible with the help of a
statistician, before being implemented.
96
See Iriondo et al. (2008) for more detail.
97
Population viability analysis (PVA) uses demographic modelling methods in order to predict the future status of a population, thus helping conservation and management
decisions (Iriondo et al. 2008).
98
See Cox (1990) for definition.
Level of Type of
Parameters to measure Explanation Objectives
monitoring parameters
3. Identification of pathogens
and intensity of pathogen
infection
Disturbance:
1. Natural (fire, flooding,
slope movement, wind
damage, extreme
temperatures, trampling,
Threats to the populations of the target
erosion)
species
2. Human-induced
disturbance (mining, logging,
livestock grazing, recreation,
road construction or
maintenance, weed control)
Climate change:
1. Annual recordings of
susceptible species and
habitats
2. Phenology
3. Changes in composition of
communities
Anthropogenic Social, economic, political To account for human influence
and cultural threats and - on the biological status and
opportunities effectiveness of conservation
Level of Type of
Parameters to measure Explanation Objectives
monitoring parameters
actions
Genetic Measure of an individual’s ability to To evaluate the genetic
Reproductive fitness produce offspring to the subsequent diversity within populations
generation To understand the dynamics of
The size of a hypothetical population that populations
Effective population size would lose genetic diversity at the same To recognise when overall
rate as the population under study reduction of fitness of a
population has occurred
Genetic diversity
To determine the level of
Gene flow
inbreeding/outbreeding of the
Population structure target species
To determine which
populations should be targeted
The minimum size of a population needed
for protection
to remain genetically viable and to
Minimum viable population To determine what to do if a
maintain genetic variation and
heterozygosity protected population has
suffered a severe decline in
population size
A.12.3. Examples and applied use
Box 56. Assessment and monitoring of agrobiodiversity and its threats in the
Fertile Crescent Biodiversity in the Fertile Crescent is of global significance as it
has globally significant populations of LR and CWR of wheat, barley, lentil,
chickpea, faba bean and several species of forages, range species and dryland fruit
trees. Little is known on the status and trends of the diversity of these species as
witnessed by the First and Second reports on the State of the World on Plant
Genetic Resources produced by FAO. ICARDA together with national research
institutes in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority and Syria conducted
population surveys in more than 65 monitoring sites between 2000-2005 period as
part of a GEF-supported regional project on promoting in situ conservation of
dryland agrobiodiversity in the four countries. Further surveys were continued in
40 monitoring sites in 2009 and 2011. The CWR demographic data accumulated
over 11 years showed that the CWR populations are suffering continued loss due
to over-grazing, land reclamation and destruction of natural habitats. However,
the CWR demographic data collected in Sweida and Al Haffeh in Syria were less
affected compared to all other non-Syrian sites. The sites originally selected for
the presence of large, healthy CWR populations in Aarsal in Lebanon and Hebron
in the West Bank on re-surveying were found to be complete destroyed due to
extensive quarrying. Although eleven of the original 65 sites were recommended
for the establishment of protected areas, only one in the Alajjat region of southern
Syria was declared in 2008 as natural reserve.
As for LR populations, the farming survey conducted in 2000 and 2004 showed
that landraces of barley, lentil, figs and olive still predominant within the farming
systems practiced by 26 communities. However, the area of LR cultivation is
reduced due to the land management changes and the introduction of exotic
plantation of fruit trees (such as cherries, apples and olive). The surveying shows
native durum wheat, apple, cherry, almond and apricot LR are being replaces by
improved foreign varieties but there are already case where the introduced
commercial varieties are failing because of their unsuitability to the local
conditions.
Source: Amri, A. (Pers. Comm.)
99
Hawkes et al. (2000)
100
ten Kate and Laird (1999)
101
Maxted and Kell (2009)
The degree to which breeders use CWR species varies between crops, it is
particularly prominent in barley, cassava, potato, rice, tomato and wheat, but
rice and wheat are the crops in which CWR have been most widely used, both
in terms of number of CWR taxa used and successful attempts to introgress
traits from the CWR to the crop;
The most widespread CWR use has been and remains in the development of
disease and pest resistance, with the references citing disease resistance
objectives accounting for 39%, pest and disease resistance 17%, abiotic stress
13%, yield increase 10%, cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restorers 4%,
quality improvers 11% and husbandry improvement 6% of the reported inter-
specific trait transfers;
The number of paper publications detailing use of CWR in breeding has
increased gradually over time, presumably as a result of technological
developments for trait transfer, with 2% of citations recorded prior to 1970, 13%
in the 1970s, 15% in the 1980s, 32% in the 1990s and 38% after 1999.
It can also be seen that since the year 2000 the number of attempts to improve
quality, husbandry and end-product commodities has increased substantially;
The use of CWR in crop improvement was primarily based upon published
journal papers but this is unlikely to reflect closely actual use of CWR in
commercial crop breeding because (a) the reporting of useful CWR trait
transfer to a crop it does not mean that this exercise resulted in a novel
variety, and (b) breeders are unlikely to be forthcoming about their use of
CWR due commercially sensitive, so the use of CWR in crop improvement is
significant but imprecisely defined;
The exploitation of the potential diversity contained in CWR species remains
ad hoc as the approach by breeders to CWR use has not been systematic or
comprehensive.
The review concludes that there is a wealth of novel traits available for crop
improvement in CWR and thus far the vast majority of CWR diversity is untapped
in terms of its potential exploitation value.
Although CWR primarily gain their value from being sources of traits for crop
improvement, they have value associated with their use by traditional, general,
and professional communities. The work of professional users, the general public
and local people can be linked through partnerships with NGOs, which could help
by organizing conservation volunteers, and could be involved in sustainable rural
development or use of resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices.
Raising public and professional awareness of the need to conserve CWR can only
help promote specific conservation action, as well as general conservation
sustainability. All partners should therefore share the goals of sustainable use of
biological resources taking into account social, economic, environmental and
scientific factors which form a cornerstone of the nations' proposals to implement
Agenda 21.
A.13.2. Methodology
Professional users include various researchers, farmers as well as plant breeders.
If associated with trait use the diversity is likely to be characterised, evaluated and
screened for the novel traits, and then use of the trait bearing germplasm in crop
breeding programmes. Various characterization techniques can be used to
identify useful traits. Professional users can utilise CWR germplasm conserved in
in situ conservation sites but more often they will utilise the samples of these
population stored ex situ in gene banks. However, the managers of genetic
reserves (PA managers together with the support of the relevant conservation
authority) should attempt to work with the professional user community to
characterise, evaluate and publicise the germplasm found at the site. CWR are
wild species and like any other group of wild species may be ecologically and
genetically studied and contribute to general ecosystem health.
General users are the public in general who via their taxes fund most CWR
conservation and whose support is likely to be essential for the long-term political
and financial viability of CWR conservation, particularly in situ activities that
have higher associated maintenance costs than germplasm held ex situ in gene
banks. One way of promoting public awareness of the value of CWR to the general
public is to encourage them to visit genetic reserves and during their visit supply
them with various formal and informal education material, CWR based cook
books, agrobiodiversity ecotourism, art competitions etc., each of which is
designed to raise awareness of the value of CWR and their conservation. The PA
containing the genetic reserve should have infrastructures that take into account
the needs of visitors (e.g. visitor centres, nature trails, lectures, etc.). They are also
likely to bring additional income to the PA itself through guided tours and the sale
of PA information packs.
Traditional users of CWR are people from local communities who live in the
vicinity of CWR populations; they are likely to have an extensive history of local
plant collecting and utilisation, and possibly of CWR themselves. They often
possess extensive knowledge of the ethnobotanical value and direct uses of plants
and because of the large proportion of all species that are CWR, a high proportion
will be CWR – though their use may be incidental to their value as a CWR (see Box
57).
Within this context it is worth noting that in situ CWR conservation sites are not
established in an anthropogenic vacuum; in other words whether a genetic reserve
is to be established or a particular CWR population sampled for ex situ
conservation, there are likely to have been traditional or local users of that
resource prior to the conservation of that resource. So if the support of the local
community for CWR conservation is to be obtained the active CWR conservation
should not hinder local resource use, unless in the rare case where it directly
conflicts with the long-term viability of the target CWR population. Many studies
have shown that conservation cannot succeed without local community support;
however, as shown by a recent analysis of the threats to CWR in Europe102, local
communities do not always, or rather are not always permitted, to manage their
resources sustainably, even if mismanagement is likely to adversely impact their
longer-term interests. For example, the development of tourism or urban
102
Kell et al. (2012)
expansion is usually governed by the government (at least in terms of planning
permission). Local communities may be given a voice and try to resist such
development, but in reality have little influence when confronting government
policy. Likewise, if a private landowner decides to sell his/her land for
development, there is seldom little that the local community can do to stop them.
Therefore, the conservationist’s role when formulating conservation action may be
just as much about resolving conflicts between local community and practical
conservation implementation, ensuring continued local community use of their
PGR resources while achieving sustainable conservation. Further there is a key
role for the conservationist to play in educating both policy-makers and local
people about the importance of these critical genetic resources.
In situ CWR conservation sites should not only be seen as a means of conserving
CWR diversity, but also as in situ research platforms for field experimentation.
There is a need for a better understanding of species dynamics within
conservation areas to aid the sustainable management of the specific taxa, but also
for ecological and genetic studies of in situ conserved CWR. Research activities on
the material conserved should be encouraged as they provide additional
justification for the establishment and long-term management of the conservation
area. Monitoring studies (such as of genetic diversity changes), as required by the
COP to the CBD adopted Strategic Plan103 can be facilitated by in situ site
managers, possibly in collaboration with NGOs and local volunteer groups. This
way, changes associated with future habitat management scenarios could be
detected and actions taken to reduce current rates of diversity loss.
103
CBD (2010b)
Box 57. Can farmers benefit directly from CWR diversity?
It is interesting to question whether CWR are of any direct value to farmers as
CWR. There are a few anecdotal reports in the literature of farmers deliberately
growing the crops near CWR to facilitate traits transfer between the CWR and the
crop, such as Mexican farmers encouraging teosinte (Zea mexicana) to grow
alongside the crop maize (Zea mays) to permit natural crossing between the CWR
and the crop. The corn producers mentioned that in approximately four years they
can obtain a new, better adapted maize variety that will out-compete traditional
varieties or hybrid maize (Serratos et al., 1996).
However this case does seem counter intuitive and contradicts the experience of
many plant breeders. Plant breeders often state that the reason that they are
reluctant to use CWR in their breeding programmes is because if they cross their
elite breeding lines with CWR, not only do they get the possibility of the desired
trait but the potentially beneficial traits are greatly outnumbered by the
deleterious characters that are also introduced from the CWR. It then takes
significant resources to select out the unwanted deleterious characters but retain
the desired traits. For any predominantly bred or highly farmer-selected crop,
introgression between the CWR and crop is likely to have an overall negative
impact on the farmer’s crop, potentially reducing yield and crop adaptive
characteristics and in the short term reducing farmer’s income. The amount of
CWR to crop introgression is also likely to vary from crop to crop and be very
limited for known inbreeding crops.
So, despite the case made for Mexican farmers directly using CWR, it seems likely
that generally farmers do not benefit directly from natural trait transfer between
CWR and crops; however it is critical if we are to conserve the full breadth of CWR
diversity that farmers understand the role of CWR in under-pinning novel cultivar
development. Thus greater effort needs to be placed on raising public and
professional awareness of the value of CWR diversity.
104
See Moore et al. (2006) and http://www.pgrforum.org/cwris/cwris.asp
105
See http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/
106
See http://pgrsecure.org/
107
See http://aegro.jki.bund.de/aegro/index.php?id=95
Rubus plicatus Weihe & Nees, a CWR, in Lithuania (photo: Juozas Labokas).
A.14.2. Methodology
Information on CWR is available from wide range of sources, but retrieving it
presents a number of challenges. Firstly, in existing databases, such as those
managed by plant gene banks, CWR accessions are not identified as CWR; this
issue is not helped by the fact that in the current FAO/IPGRI Multi-crop Passport
Descriptors V. 2108 the SAMPSTAT descriptor allows for designation of wild
species samples but does not make a distinction between CWR and non-CWR wild
species. Secondly, although information on CWR per se is possible only of specific
interest to the PGR conservation and use community because CWR are ‘normal’
wild species they are also collected, conserved and studied by a broad community
of taxonomist, ecologists, geneticists, physiologists, etc. and so when collating
CWR information these other communities need to be consulted. Further these
non-PGR communities often have significantly larger data sets than the PGR
community itself. These challenges are not insurmountable but they do demand a
carefully considered and tested approach (particularly with regard to obtaining
information from non-PGR communities) and a considerable amount of time.
However, like all data mining activities the more background data available the
more predictive the analysis results in formulating effective conservation plans.
Information at the CWR at the taxon level is primarily gathered from the relevant
literature: monographs, revisions, field guides, floras, gazetteers, articles, papers,
soil, vegetation and climatic maps, atlases, etc., while at the accession level it is
gathered from herbarium and germplasm collections of the target taxon from the
target area, and the latter will often involve visiting the herbarium or gene bank to
collect the data. However in recent years there has been exponential growth of
web-enabled ecogeographic datasets, most notably the Global Biodiversity
Information Facility (GBIF) established in 2001 (http://data.gbif.org), which
provides extensive access to global taxon nomenclature, taxon and accession
distribution, conservation and environmental data.
108
http://eurisco.ecpgr.org/fileadmin/www.eurisco.org/documents/MCPD_V2_2012_Final_PDFversion.pdf
109
Castañeda Álvarez et al. (2011)
Genetic Resources major ex situ home_page.html
Search Catalogue agrobiodiversity gene
(EURISCO) bank holdings
FAOSTAT Agricultural statistics http://www.faostat.fao.org/
and data
Gap Analysis Project Ex situ gap analysis gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/gapanal
results of 13 crop gene ysis/
pools
GBIF Global Biodiversity data http://data.gbif.org/
GENESYS Global database of major http://www.genesys-pgr.org/
ex situ gene bank
holdings
Glob cover European Space Agency http://ionia1.esrin.esa.int/
Global Land Cover map,
latest version = 2009
Harlan and de Wet Global checklist and http://www.cwrdiversity.org
Global Priority database of priority
Checklist of CWR CWR taxa in 173 crop
Taxa gene pools
IUCN Red List Database of red list http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(extinction threat)
assessments
JSTOR herbaria Herbaria resources http://plants.jstor.org/
Plant list Working list of all http://www.theplantlist.org/
known plant species
Tropicos (Missouri Herbaria resources http://www.tropicos.org
Botanical Gardens,
USA)
UNEP WCMC World World Database on http://www.protectedplanet.n
Database of Protected Protected Areas et/
Areas (polygons)
US Genetic Resources Database of USDA ex http://www.ars-
Information Network situ gene bank holdings grin.gov/npgs/acc/acc_queri
(GRIN) es.html
National program accession datasets
Russia AgroAtlas www.agroatlas.ru
Brazil CRIA www.cria.org.br
Japan NIAS www.gene.affrc.go.jp/databases_en.php
Mexico www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/genes/proyecto
Maices.html
Other accession datasets
CWRIS PLIS http://aegro.jki.bund.de/index.php?id=168
Harold and Adele
Lieberman
www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/units/ICCI/genebank1.html
Germplasm Bank
(cereals)
Manchester Museum http://emu.man.ac.uk/mmcustom/BotQuery.php
Millennium Seed www.kew.org/science-conservation/save-seed-
Bank, Kew prosper/millennium-seed-bank/index.htm
www.nhm.ac.uk/research-
Natural History
curation/collections/departmental-collections/botany-
Museum, UK
collections/search/index.php
Royal Botanic
http://apps.kew.org/herbcat/navigator.do
Gardens Kew
Royal Botanical
www.rbge.org.uk/databases
Garden of Edinburgh
www.nhm.ac.uk/research-
SolanaceaeSource
curation/research/projects/solanaceaesource
United States Virtual
http://usvirtualherbarium.org
Herbarium
Virtual Australian http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/HISCOM/Virtualher
Herbarium b/virtualherbarium.html#Virtual
The types of data managed will fall into four basic types, which may be
subdivided:
• Ecogeographic data (taxonomic, ecological, geographic and genetic);
- Taxonomy and nomenclature,
- Degree of relationship between crop and CWR,
- CWR uses: historic, current and potential,
- Other uses: other than as a trait donor,
- Current, historical and potential distribution, including:
o Country occurrence/extent of occurrence,
o Number of populations,
o Record of extinctions,
o Mapping function/GIS layers,
- Genetic diversity and biology,
- Ecology and habitat,
- Threat status,
- Conservation measures, including:
o Occurrence in named protected areas and genetic reserves,
o Conservation management techniques,
o Ex situ holdings in gene banks,
- References to specific research projects,
- Contacts,
• Field population data (passport);
- Precise population location (distributional polygon),
- Land management regime (protected area, private ownership, common
land),
- Population characteristics,
o Size,
o Cover
o Genetic characterisation,
o Age structure,
o Obligate associated species (associated keystones, pollinators, seed
dispersers)
• Conservation management data (curatorial);
- In situ criteria
o Management regime and interventions
o Monitoring regime
o Place in national, regional and global CWR networks
o Place in non-CWR specific conservation networks
o Local community participation
- Ex situ criteria
o Gene bank holding collection,
o Location of seed in gene bank,
o Germination and regeneration testing,
o Access and benefit sharing policy,
• Characterization and evaluation data (descriptive);
- Taxonomic morphological description
- Genetic description,
- Agronomic description
- Breeder desired characteristic evaluation (disease, pest, drought resistance,
etc.)
Although this list of CWR data types is extensive it is not exhaustive, it is
indicative of the types of data involved in CWR conservation and use.
Each of these data types are collated using some type of standard descriptor. A
descriptor may be defined as “any attribute referring to a population, accession or
taxon which the conservationist uses for the purpose of describing, conserving
and using this material”. Descriptors are abstract in a general sense, and it is the
descriptor states that conservationists actually record and utilise. Standard
descriptors for ecogeographic, field and conservation management data are
included in the Descriptors for CWR110, while formal characterization and
evaluation descriptors are associated with various standardized ‘Crop descriptor
lists’ published by FAO, Bioversity, UPOV (see
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications.html) – these may or may not
be suitable for describing the crop’s associated CWR. It is important to stress that
standard lists of descriptors should be used when they are available. The use of
well-defined, tested and rigorously implemented descriptor lists for scoring
descriptors considerably simplifies all operations concerned with data recording,
such as updating and modifying data, information retrieval, exchange, data
analysis and transformation. When data are recorded, they should be classified
and interpreted with a pre-defined list of descriptors and descriptor states to
consult. This clearly saves a considerable amount of time and effort associated
with data entry. The use of lists ensures uniformity, while reducing errors and
problems associated with text synonyms.
110
http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/
CWR CWR
NATIONAL NATIONAL
INVENTORY CHECKLIST CWR Taxon
Ecogeographic data
Characterisation and
evaluation data
CWR CWR
Conservation Conservation
Management Monitoring
National
CWR Beneficiaries
Exploitation
Figure 26. Entity relationship model for the CWR database 111
c. CWR Gap analysis – The CWR checklist and inventory are primarily taxon
based but the gap analysis based largely on data associated with individual
accessions that represent those taxa. Normally significant resources will be
invested in the collation of large herbarium specimen and gene bank accession
data sets. There is no standard format for the database that contains this data, but
Annex 5 contains an extended list of data descriptors112 that will include those
used as a basis for gap analysis.
d. CWR conservation – The data associated with CWR management will vary
depending on whether it is associated with in situ or ex situ conservation, but falls
into three basic categories (ecogeographic, field population, conservation
management and monitoring) as detailed with examples above.
111
Vincent (Pers. Comm.)
112
Castañeda Álvarez et al. (2011)
113
Zeven (1998)
114
Camacho Villa et al. (2005)
115
Negri (2007) who took into account the discussions presented by Anderson and Cutler (1942), Harlan
(1975), Brush (1992, 1995), Papa (1996, 1999), Zeven (1998), Asfaw (2000), Friis‐Hansen and Sthapit
(2000), Negri (2003, 2005a), Camacho Villa et al. (2005), Saxena and Singh (2006).
116
Kell et al. (2009)
117
Zeven (1998) after Mayr (1937)
Some authors question whether locally adapted ‘allochthonous landraces’ fit
within the above definitions of LR because they lack a historical origin among
farmers. However, these LR do have local economic importance, are likely to
contribute increase crop diversity availability to farmers and breeders, and many
were introduced a significant time ago so that they have passed through
numerous sowing, cultivation, harvesting cycles since introduction so may not be
regarded as distinct from the original introduction.
Genetic erosion is the main threat to landraces. What is genetic erosion? 118
Genetic erosion is the main threat to LR and has been referred to in the literature
as:
the loss of a crop, variety or allele diversity119,120,121,122;
the reduction in richness (in the total number of crops, varieties or
alleles)123,124,125,126;
the reduction in evenness (i.e. of genetic diversity)127,128.
118
See Maxted and Guarino (2006) and Van de Wouw et al. (2009) for reviews on the concept of genetic
erosion in crops.
119
Peroni and Hanazaki (2002)
120
Gao (2003)
121
Tsegaye and Berg (2007)
122
Willemen et al. (2007)
123
Hammer et al. (1996)
124
Hammer and Laghetti (2005)
125
Ford‐Lloyd (2006)
126
Nabhan (2007)
127
Khlestkina et al. (2004)
128
Ford‐Lloyd (2006)
included in the national or regional varietal list; LR growers do not usually
register their varieties since this process is relatively expensive and generally
returns limited value to individual farmers; therefore, as it is illegal to grow
non-registered varieties in many countries, farmers are inadvertently
encouraged to switch to registered varieties and their LR material is lost;
simplification of silvi-agriculture productive processes due to high manpower
costs;
subsidy schemes that promote the use of uniform varieties;
perverse incentives given by, for instance, government agricultural advisory
services, such as the free distribution of modern cultivars;
constant decrease of rural populations due to migration and emigration;
research programmes that ignore LR and their associated knowledge and uses;
ageing of farmers and the unsuccessful passage of LR and associated
knowledge from one generation to the next;
lack of education of the unique value of LR as a local, national and global
resource;
changes in consumption habits;
food standards that limit entry of LR and products into markets;
political system such as in the ex-Soviet Union where agriculture was
structured into a system of state (sovkhozes) and very large collective farms
(kolkhozes) with centralized planning (what to cultivate and where) and
relatively high mechanization, which have favoured the cultivation of
introduced varieties rather than of local LR;
war and political instability, as in Cambodia where nearly all traditional
varieties were lost during civil unrest, though subsequently some Cambodian
LR were repatriated from the International Rice Research Institute collection129;
climate change – changes in climate are expected to directly affect the cropping
patterns and result in extinction of traditional varieties, particularly in drier
regions where certain LR are already marginally being grown near their limits
of minimum rainfall requirement.
Many of these threats are associated with external changes in fragile traditional
agro-ecosystem, the introduction of various alien factors stressing the agro-
ecosystem dynamic and results in change from traditional LR to modern cultivars.
Like oceanic island vulnerable to alien species introduction, traditional agro-
ecosystem have ‘evolved’ in isolation and demonstrate ‘evolutionary innocence’
often being out-competed by the more aggressive introductions, ultimately
resulting in the loss of native diversity.
129
Hawkes et al. (2000)
Traditional farmers in West Tatry (Zuberec, Slovakia) (photo: Pavol Hauptvogel).
B.1.1. List of references used to compile the text (cited footnotes in green)
Anderson E and Cutler HC (1942) Races of Zea mays: I. Their recognition and
classification. Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden 29, 69-89.
Asfaw Z (2000) “The barleys of Ethiopia.” In: Brush SB (Ed) Genes in the field.
IPGRI, Rome/IDRC, Ottawa/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. pp. 77-107
Brush SB (1992) Ethnoecology, biodiversity and modernization in Andean potato
agriculture. Journal of Ethnobiology 12: 161-185.
Brush SB (1995) In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop
Science 35: 346-354.
Camacho Villa TC, Maxted N, Scholten MA and Ford-Lloyd BV (2005) Defining
and identifying crop landraces. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and
Utilization 3(3): 373-384.
Cardinale BJ, Srivastava DS, Emmett JD, Wright JP, Downing AM, Sankaran M
and Jouseau C (2006) Effects of biodiversity on the functioning of trophic
groups and ecosystems. Nature 443: 989-992.
FAO (2008) Climate Change and Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. FAO,
Rome.
Ford-Lloyd BV (2006) “Realistic population and molecular genetic approaches to
genetic assessment.” In: Ford-Lloyd BV, Dias SR and Bettencourt E (Eds)
Genetic erosion and pollution assessment methodologies. Proceedings of PGR
Forum Workshop 5, Terceira Island, Autonomous Region of the Azores,
Portugal, 8–11 September 2004. Rome: Bioversity International, pp. 51–54.
Friis-Hansen E and Sthapit B (2000) Participatory Approaches to the
Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources. International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Gao LZ (2003) The conservation of Chinese rice biodiversity: genetic erosion,
ethnobotany and prospects. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 17-32.
Hajjar R, Jarvis DI and Gemmill-Herren B (2008) The utility of crop genetic
diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 123: 261-270.
Hammer K and Laghetti G (2005) Genetic erosion – examples from Italy. Genetic
Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 629–634.
Hammer K, Knupffer H, Xhuveli L and Perrino P (1996) Estimating genetic erosion
in landraces – two case studies. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43: 329–
336.
Harlan JR (1975) Our vanishing genetic resources. Science 188: 618-621.
Hawkes JG, Maxted N and Ford-Lloyd BV (2000) The ex situ conservation of plant
genetic resources. Kluwer, Dordrecht. pp. 250.
Heinonen M and Veteläinen M (2007) Vanhojen viljakantojen ylläpitoviljely
Suomessa (Maintenance of cereal landraces on-farm in Finland). Maaseudun
uusi aika 3: 37-50.
Jackson LE, Pascual U and Hodgkin T (2007) Utilizing and conserving
agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 121: 196-210.
Jarvis DI, Hodgkin T, Sthapit BR, Fadda C, and Lopez-Noriega I (2011) A heuristic
framework for identifying multiple ways of supporting the conservation and
use of traditional crop varieties within the agricultural production system.
Critical Reviews in Plant Science 30(1-2): 125-176.
Kell SP, Maxted N, Allender C, Astley D, Ford‐Lloyd BV and contributors (2009)
Vegetable Landrace Inventory of England and Wales. The University of
Birmingham, UK. 117 pp. Available from:
http://www.grfa.org.uk/media_files/publications_plant/veg_lr_inventory_eng
land_and_wales.pdf [Accessed 2 March 2011].
Khlestkina EK, Huang XQ, Quenum FJB, Chebotar S, Roder MS and Borner A
(2004) Genetic diversity in cultivated plants – loss or stability? Theoretical and
Applied Genetics 108: 1466–1472.
Maxted N (2006) UK land-races – a hidden resource? Plant Talk 44: 8.
Maxted N and Guarino L (2006) “Genetic erosion and genetic pollution of crop
wild relatives.” In: Ford-Lloyd BV, Dias S and Bettencourt E (eds) Genetic
erosion and pollution assessment methodologies. IPGRI, Rome. pp. 35-46.
Maxted N and Scholten MA (2007) “Methodologies for the creation of National /
European inventories.” In: Del Greco A, Negri V and Maxted N. (compilers)
Report of a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, Second
Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Stegelitz, Germany. Bioversity International, Rome,
pp 11-19.
Mayr E (1937) Alpine landsorten in ihrer bedeutung für die praktische züchtung.
Forschungsdienst, 4: 162-166.
Nabhan GP (2007) Agrobiodiversity change in a Saharan desert oasis, 1919–2006:
historic shifts in Tasiwit (Berber) and Bedouin crop inventories of Siwa, Egypt.
Economic Botany 61: 31–43.
Negri V (2003) Landraces in central Italy: Where and why they are conserved and
perspectives for their on-farm conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 50: 871-885.
Negri V (2005a) Agro-biodiversity conservation in Europe: ethical issues. Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(1): 3-25.
Negri V (2007) “Towards a more comprehensive definition of ‘landrace’ than
currently published.” In: Del Greco A, Negri V and Maxted N (compilers)
Report of a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, Second
Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Stegelitz, Germany. Bioversity International, Rome,
20 pp.
Negri V, Maxted N and Veteläinen M (2009) “European landrace conservation: an
introduction.” In: Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (Eds) European
landraces: on-farm conservation, management and use. Bioversity Technical
Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, pp. 1-22.
Papa C (1996) “The ‘farre de Montelione’: landrace and representation.” In:
Padulosi S, Hammer K and Heller J (Eds) Hulled Wheats. Promoting the
conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 4. Proceedings of
the First International Workshop on Hulled Wheats, 21-22 July 1995,
Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy. International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome, pp. 154-171.
Papa C (1999) “Il farro a Monteleone di Spoleto: pratiche agrarie, consuetudini
giuridiche e ritualità.” In: Papa C (Ed) Il Farro. Saperi, Usi e Conservazione
delle Varietà Locali. Quaderni del CEDRAV 1. CEDRAV Cerreto di Spoleto,
Italy, pp. 9-26.
Peroni N and Hanazaki N (2002) Current and lost diversity of cultivated varieties,
especially cassava, under swidden cultivation systems in the Brazilian Atlantic
Forest. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 92: 171–183.
Saxena S and Singh AK (2006) Revisit to definitions and need for inventorization
or registration of landrace, folk, farmers’ and traditional varieties. Current
Science 91(11): 1451-1454.
Tsegaye B and Berg T (2007) Genetic erosion of Ethiopian tetraploid wheat
landraces in Eastern Shewa, Central Ethiopia. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 54: 715–726.
van de Wouw M, Kik C, van Hintum T, van Treuren R and Visser B (2009) Genetic
erosion in crops: concept, research results and challenges. Plant Genetic
Resources: Characterization and Utilization 8(1): 1-15
Willemen L, Scheldeman X, Cabellos VS, Salazar SR and Guarino L (2007) Spatial
patterns of diversity and genetic erosion of traditional cassava (Manihot
esculenta Crantz) in the Peruvian Amazon: An evaluation of socio-economic
and environmental indicators. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 1599–
1612.
Zeven AC (1998) Landraces: a review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica
104: 127-139.
Zimmerer KS (1991) Labor shortages and crop diversity in the Southern Peruvian
Sierra. Geographical Review 81(4): 414-432.
Given the numerous LR management scenarios across the world, the available
data, the financial and human resources allocated to conservation, as well as the
different levels of commitment by national agencies and governments, the
formulation and implementation of a National management plan for LR
conservation will undoubtedly differ markedly from country to country.
Nevertheless, there are likely to be common elements in the development of a
National plan of this kind that comprises a series of steps aiming at successful LR
diversity conservation and promotion of its use. These steps are:
(i) Preparation of a national LR checklist: to prepare a national list of the
country’s LR diversity (floristic approach), or alternatively, a list of LR of
selected crops (monographic approach).
(ii) Preparation of a national LR inventory: to collate ecogeographic, agricultural
cultivation, farmer and commodity exploitation data for each LR that
enhances the checklist.
(iii) Identification of threats to LR diversity and threat assessment: to identify
threats that affect LR diversity as well as to undertake threat assessment.
(iv) Prioritization of national LR: to prioritize the LR grown in the country, only if
the number exceeds the number that can be conserved using the available
resources.
(v) Genetic analysis of priority LR: to collate genetic data for priority LR or, if
unavailable, to carry out genetic analysis.
(vi) Gap analysis: to identify in situ (on-farm) and ex situ conservation gaps to
help establish in situ and ex situ conservation goals and priorities.
(vii) Formulation of the National management plan: to establish in situ and ex
situ conservation goals and priorities.
Network of LR on‐
In situ actions farm sites
Implementation of LR
conservation goals
Ex situ actions Systematic ex situ
conservation
Conserved national (and
global) LR diversity
UTILISATION
Farmers, breeders
Cultivation, niche development, local Cultural heritage Research and education Breeding activities
and commercial
market chains
companies input
Figure 11. Model for the development of a National management plan for CWR conservation
B.2.1. Additional materials and resources
General references:
Jarvis DI, Myer L, Klemick H, Guarino L, Smale M, Brown AHD, Sadiki M,
Sthapit B and Hodgkin T (2000) A Training Guide for In Situ
Conservation On-farm. Version 1. International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome, Italy.
Maxted N, Guarino L, Myer L and Chiwona EA (2002) Towards a
methodology for on-farm conservation of plant genetic resources. Genetic
Resources and Crop Evolution 49: 31‒46.
Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (eds) (2009) European Landraces:
On-Farm Conservation, Management and Use. Bioversity Technical
Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, pp. 70-78.
Green N (2008) The Scottish landrace protection scheme (SLPS):
conserving Scottish landraces. Available from: http://ukpgrg.org/slps.pdf
[Accessed June 2012].
National biodiversity strategies that refer to LR conservation:
Saving Nature for People. National Strategy and Action Plan for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Finland 2006-2016.
Available from:
http://www.syke.fi/download.asp?contentid=75624&lan=en [Accessed on
December 2011].
Malaysia’s National Biodiversity Policy. Available from:
http://www.chm.frim.gov.my/NBP.pdf
Ireland’s National Strategy for Plant Conservation (draft). Available from:
http://www.botanicgardens.ie/gspc/pdfs/draftplan.pdf
Ireland’s National Strategy for Plant Conservation. Specific actions
WW
regarding agro-biodiversity:
W
http://www.botanicgardens.ie/gspc/targets/inspc9.htm
National on-farm conservation projects:
“On-farm conservation in Finland” (2006-2008) by MTT Agrifood
Research Finland
Other references:
Wood D and Lenné JM (1997) The conservation of agrobiodiversity on-
farm: questioning the emerging paradigm. Biodiversity and Conservation
6: 109-129.
Park YJ, Dixit A, Ma K-H, Kang JH, Rao VR and Cho E-G (2005) On-farm
conservation strategy to ensure crop genetic diversity in changing agro-
ecosystems in the Republic of Korea. Journal of Agronomy and Crop
Science 191(6): 401-410.
B.3. National checklist of landraces
B.3.1. Overview
We need to know what exists, and where, to determine how we can conserve and
use it effectively. Checklists of crops and their varieties is therefore a fundamental
tool for supporting, facilitating and monitoring the conservation and sustainable
use of agro-biodiversity. This was addressed in the Global Strategy for Plant
Conservation (GSPC) which recognized a checklist as a means of organizing
information in a logical and retrievable way, preventing duplication of effort when
planning conservation actions and enabling the planning of the sustainable use of
plants―essential resources for food, medicines and ecosystem services.
The knowledge we obtain from checklists of LR will:
i. help characterising the LR diversity existing in a particular geographic unit
hence assist authorities in planning and implementing policies and strategies
for conservation and use of agro-biodiversity, which is essential in
underpinning national food security,
ii. help future germplasm surveys and collections to be more efficient,
iii. allow the accessibility and exchange of information within existing PGR
networks, as well as other researchers and research stations.
There are several publications on inter-crop diversity (i.e., diversity between
crops) both at a global and national level, but intra-crop diversity (i.e., diversity
within crops) information at global and national levels for LR is generally lacking.
The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture noted a substantial increase in the number of inventories, both
with regards to single crops, groups of species, or within geographically defined
areas, but they remain far from systematic. There is to date no standardized
methodology for generation of a LR checklist which may explain why the creation
of national LR checklists has received little research attention or practical
application.
Farmer showing panicle of Nunkho (scented) sorghum landrace in Waruma,
Phalombe, Malawi (photo by Edwin A Chiwona).
LR SURVEY
LR CHECKLIST
See the ‘Additional materials and resources’ for concrete references under
each key source.
(iv) Survey and produce a checklist of LR. A number of methods can be used to
seek out LR information, including media releases (television, radio, press
and internet), advertisements, questionnaires, internet searches, email
correspondence, telephone calls and face to face meetings. These are likely to
be followed-up by:
Farmer interviews. Farmers themselves can be approached indirectly
through advertisements, articles in farmers’ magazines and local
newspapers, radio or other non-print media, and directly via personal
contacts. See examples of LR diversity information collecting form and
data descriptors for management data associated with each LR surveyed
with the farmers in the ‘Additional materials and resources’.
Expert consultations. From gene banks, national testing centres,
statutory collections associated with national cultivar listing, research
institutes, agricultural extension divisions, farmers’ organizations,
agricultural statisticians, other professionals and NGOs.
Commercial companies involved in seed production, brewing, milling,
distilling, etc.
Scientific literature, including historical literature, research reports,
papers and articles.
‘Grey literature’ associated with gene banks, research institutes, seed
companies, NGO newsletters, local farmers’ society publications, and farm
records.
Official documents, for instance agricultural statistics or national
varietal lists.
Also it should not be assumed that all LR must be identified by novel
investigations, some may exist and even be conserved but are not recognised as
LR. For example, in gene banks LR may not be distinguished from modern
varieties or other types of PRGFA. Therefore an initial stage in the survey maybe
to clarify whether any LR are present in existing collections but simply not
designated as LR accessions.
(iv) Make the LR checklist available to users. It is essential that the checklist that
is created is made available to users, both locally, nationally and globally. To
facilitate the widest use, the inventory should ideally be created as a digital
database which should be made available to users, ideally via a web-enabled
database. Some of the databases currently available are found in the list of
‘Additional materials and resources’.
B.3.3. Examples and applied use of LR checklists
There are no examples of complete national checklists of LR. On the other hand,
partial national checklists of LR have been prepared in some countries, including
Libya130,131 and Ethiopia132. Most examples are based on organized expeditions to
collect specimens and ex situ accessions for conservation and evaluation, as well
as to collect information on the cultivation method, history and traditional
knowledge and use of LR.
130
Hammer and Perrino (1985)
131
Hammer et al. (1988)
132
Yemane et al. (2009)
Hammer K (1990) Botanical checklists prove useful in research programmes on
cultivated plants. Diversity 6(3-4): 31-34.
Hammer K (1991) Checklists and germplasm collecting. FAO/IBPGR Plant
Genetic Resources Newsletter 85: 15-17.
Hammer K and Perrino P (1985) A check-list of the cultivated plants of the Ghat
oases. Kulturpflanze 33: 269–286.
Hammer K, Lehman CO and Perrino P (1988) A check-list of the Libyan cultivated
plants including an inventory of the germplasm collected in the years 1981, 1982
and 1983. Kulturpflanze 36: 475-527.
Knüpffer H and Hammer K (1999) “Agricultural biodiversity: a database for
checklists of cultivated plant species.” In: Andrews S, Leslie AC and Alexander
C (Eds). Taxonomy of Cultivated plants: Third International Symposium. Royal
Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 215-224.
Lughadha EN (2004) Towards a working list of all known plant species.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 359: 681-687.
Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London B. 359: 711-719.
Maxted N and Scholten MA (2007) “Methodologies for the creation of National /
European inventories.” In: Del Greco A, Negri V and Maxted N. (compilers)
Report of a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management, Second
Meeting, 19-20 June 2006, Stegelitz, Germany. Bioversity International, Rome,
pp 11-19.
Maxted N, Veteläinen M and Negri V (2009) “Landrace inventories: needs and
methodologies.” In: Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (Eds) European
landraces: on-farm conservation, management and use. Bioversity Technical
Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, pp. 45-52.
Negri V, Maxted N and Veteläinen M (2009) “European landrace conservation: an
introduction.” In: Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (Eds) European
landraces: on-farm conservation, management and use. Bioversity Technical
Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, pp. 1-22.
RBG (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) (2004). Stakeholder consultation on Target 1 of
the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation and CBD. Draft report. Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. Available from:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/pc/tempc-02/other/tempc-02-target-01-
en.pdf [Accessed February 2011].
Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (2009b) “A European strategic approach to
conserving crop landraces.” In Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (Eds)
European landraces: on-farm conservation, management and use. Bioversity
Technical Bulletin 15. Bioversity International, Rome, pp. 305-325.
Yemane T, Zeratsion A, Afewerk K and Berhane G (2009) A dynamic Sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) diversity management in situ and livelihood
resilience in South and Central Tigray Region, Ethiopia. CNCS, Mekelle
University 1(2): 67-94. Available from:
http://www.ajol.info/index.php/mejs/article/viewFile/46049/32457 [Accessed
January 2012].
B.3.5. Additional materials and resources
Lists of global or regional crop diversity:
Brouk B (1975) Plants consumed by Man. Academic Press, London.
EC (European Commission) (2011a) Common catalogue of varieties of
vegetable species. 29th complete edition (2011/C 14 A/01). Official Journal
of the European Union, 18.01.2011. Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:012A:0001:0026:
EN:PDF [Accessed December 2011].
EC (European Commission) (2011b) Common catalogue of varieties of
agricultural plant species. Third supplement to the 29th complete edition
((2011/C 328 A/01). Official Journal of the European Union, 11.11.2011.
Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:090A:0001:0020:
EN:PDF [Accessed December 2011].
Hanelt P and IPK (Institut für Pflanzengenetik und
Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben) (eds) (2001) Mansfeld’s
Encyclopaedia of Agricultural and Horticultural Crops, 6 vols. 1st Engl. Ed.
Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 3645 pp.
Rehm S and Espig GE (1996) Die Kulturpflanze der Tropen und
Subtropen. Anbau, wirtschaftliche Bedeutung, Verwertung.
Sanchez-Monge E (1991) Flora Agricola. T. 1, 2. Ministerio de Agricultura,
Madrid.
Schultze-Motel J (1966) Verzeichnis forstlich kultivierter Pflanzenarten
[Enumeration of cultivated forest plant species]. Kulturpflanze Beiheft 4,
486 pp.
Vul’F EV and Maleeva OF (1969) Mirovye resursy polezznych rastenij
[World resources of useful plants]. Nauka, Leningrad.
Wiersema JH and Leon D (1999) World Economic Plants. A Standard
Reference CRC Press LLC, Washington DC.
Zeven AC and de Wet JMJ (1982) Dictionary of cultivated plants and their
regions of diversity. Pudoc, Wageningen.
Global Horticulture Initiative (2007) PROTABASE - Plant Resources of
WW
Tropical Africa: http://www.globalhort.org/knowledge-base/species/
W
[Accessed December 2011].
IPK (Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung
Gatersleben) (2003) Mansfeld’s World Database of Agricultural and
WW Horticultural Crops. Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant
W Research. Available from: http://mansfeld.ipk-
gatersleben.de/pls/htmldb_pgrc/f?p=185:3:1352060495268324 [Accessed
February 2005].
PROSEA Foundation (n.d.) E-Prosea - Plant Resources of South-East Asia:
WW
http://proseanet.org/prosea/eprosea.php [Accessed January 2012]
W
(database of both wild and plant resources of South-East Asia)
World Agroforestry Centre (2011a) Agroforestree Database:
WW http://www.worldagroforestry.org/resources/databases/agroforestree
W [Accessed December 2011] (data on the management, use and ecology of
tree species from all over the World which can be used in agro-forestry)
World Agroforestry Centre (2011b) Useful Tree Species for Africa:
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/our_products/databases/useful-tree-
species-africa [Accessed December 2011] (this tool enables the selection
of useful tree species for planting anywhere in Africa using Google Earth)
Underutilised crops/neglected species lists:
Batlle I (2000) Genetic Resources of Minor Fruit and Nut Trees in Europe.
In Maggioni, L. (compiler). Report of a Network Coordinating Group on
Minor Crops (2nd edition). First meeting. 16 June 1999, Turku, Finland.
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Della A (2000) Minor Crops in the Mediterranean Region. In Maggioni L
(compiler) Report of a Network Coordinating Group on Minor Crops (2nd
edition). First meeting. 16 June 1999, Turku, Finland. International Plant
Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Hammer K and Spahillari M (2000) Crops of European origin. In:
Maggioni L (compiler) Report of a Network Coordinating Group on Minor
Crops (2nd edition). First meeting. 16 June 1999, Turku, Finland.
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Michalová A (2000) Minor Cereals and Pseudocereals in Europe. In
Maggioni L (compiler) Report of a Network Coordinating Group on Minor
Crops (2ne edition). First meeting. 16 June 1999, Turku, Finland.
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Pistrick K (2002) Notes on neglected and underutilized crops. Current
taxonomical overview of cultivated plants in the families Umbelliferae and
Labiatae. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 49: 211-225.
Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilzed Species (n.d.) GFU Underutilized
WW
Species GFU Database. Available from: http://www.underutilized-
W
species.org/species/species_mask.asp [Accessed December 2011]
Plants for a Future (1996-2010) Plants for a Future Database. Available
WW
from: http://www.pfaf.org/user/plantsearch.aspx [Accessed December
W
2011] (a resource centre edible, medicinal and other uses unusual plants)
Freedman B (2011) Famine foods database. Available from:
WW http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/faminefoods/ff_home.html
W [Accessed January 2012] (list of plants that are not normally considered as
crops but that are consumed in times of famine)
National crop diversity studies:
Albania:
Hammer K and Spahillari M (1998) Burimet gjenetike te bimevedhe
agrobiodiversiteti. Buletini i Shkencave Bujqesore, 3: 29-36.
Cuba:
Esquivel M, Castiñeiras L, Knüpffer H and Hammer K (1989) A checklist
of the cultivated plants of Cuba. Kulturpflanze, 37: 211–357.
Esquivel M, Knüpffer H and Hammer K (1992) “Inventory of the cultivated
plants.” In Hammer K, Esquivel M and Knüpffer H (eds) (1992-1994).
“…y tienen fazones y fabas muy diversos de los nuestros…” – Origin,
Evolution and Diversity of Cuban Plant Genetic Resources. 3 vols., 824
pp. IPK, Gatersleben.
Knüpffer H, Esquivel M and Hammer K (unknown date) A database for the
cultivated plants of Cuba. Rev. Jard. Bot. Nac., Habana. In Hammer K
(1991). Checklists and germplasm collecting. FAO/IBPGR Plant
Genetic Resources Newsletter, 85: 15-17.
Korea:
Baik M-C, Hoang H-Dz and Hammer K (1986) A check-list of the Korean
cultivated plants. Kulturpflanzen, 34: 69-144.
Hoang H-Dz, Knüpffer H and Hammer K (1997) Additional notes to the
checklist of Korean cultivated plants (5). Consolidated summary and
indexes. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 44: 349-391.
Libya:
Hammer K and Perrino P (1985) A check-list of the cultivated plants of the
Ghat oases. Kulturpflanze, 33: 269–286.
Hammer K, Lehman CO and Perrino P (1988) A check-list of the Libyan
cultivated plants including an inventory of the germplasm collected in
the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. Kulturpflanze, 36: 475-527.
Russia:
Smekalova T (2009) “Cultivated plants inventory of Russia”. In:
Veteläinen M, Negri V and Maxted N (eds) European Landraces: On-Farm
Conservation, Management and Use. Bioversity Technical Bulletin, No 15.
pp.143-154.
South Italy and Sicily:
Hammer K, Knüpffer H and Perrino P (1990). A checklist of the South
Italian cultivated plants. Kulturpflanze, 38: 191–310
Hammer K, Knüpffer H, Laghetti G and Perrino P (1992) Seeds form the
past. A catalogue of crop germplasm in south Italy and Sicily. Instituto
del Germoplasma del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Bari. 173 p.
Central and north Italy:
Hammer K, Knüpffer H, Laghetti G and Perrino P (1999) Seeds form the
past. A catalogue of crop germplasm in central and north Italy. Instituto
del Germoplasma del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Bari. 253 p.
Monographs of crops:
Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected
Crops Series which have monographic inventories available from
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
International agricultural statistics:
WW FAOSTAT: http://faostat.fao.org/ (data on global production and value
W for crops that may be queried at a national level)
WW EUROSTAT: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (provides information for
W European Union countries)
Nomenclatural versus genetic definition of landraces:
de Haan S, Bonierbale M, Ghislain M, Núñez J and Trujillo G (2007)
Indigenous biosystematics of Andean potatoes: folk taxonomy,
descriptors and nomenclature. ISHS Acta Horticulturae 745: 89-134.
Huamán Z and Spooner DM (2002) Reclassification of landrace
populations of cultivated potatoes (Solanum sect. Petota). American
Journal of Botany 89: 947-965.
Majaju C and Chakuya E (2008) Morphological variation of sorghum
landrace accessions on-farm in semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe. International
Journal of Botany, 4(4): 376-382.
B.4. National inventory of landraces and analysis
B.4.1. Overview
133
Castañeda Álvarez et al. 2011
134
For Trifolium spp. by Bennett and Bullitta (2003)
characterisation and evaluation data along with farmer knowledge on
management complements that normally collated as part of an ecogeographic
survey and should be integrated with it when undertaking an ecogeographic
survey of LR diversity.
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the ecogeographic survey
methodology. It comprises three main phases: project design, data collection and
analysis, and the ecogeographic products. The project design includes: (i)
Identification of taxon or crop expert, (ii) Selection of target taxon/crop taxonomy,
and (iii) Design and creation of the database structure. The data collection and
analysis include: (iv) Survey of passport, management, site and environment, and
existing characterization and evaluation data, (v) Collation of data into database,
(vi) Data verification, and (vii) Data analysis. The ecogeographic products
include: (viii) LR inventory (which contains raw data on existing LR grown by each
farmer together with the ecogeographic, characterisation, evaluation and farmer
knowledge on its management and conservation), (ix) Conspectus (that
summarizes all data for each LR), and (x) Report (which interprets the data
obtained).
135
For African Vigna spp. by Maxted et al. (2004)
136
Guarino et al. (2005)
Crop experts or botanists: can give advice on the location of important
plant collections and suggest relevant grey literature, monographs, crop
databases and other works;
Breeders, agronomists with experience in the crop gene pool, and other
users of PGR working in national agricultural research centres: they are
usually familiarised with documenting, interpreting, and using genetic
diversity at the infra-specific level, as well as identifying gaps in existing
collections, regions known or suspected to harbour interesting LR
germplasm, and what traits to look for and pay particular attention to
when in the field;
Global and regional crop-specific networks, NGOs, governmental or
international agencies working in rural development projects in the target
region (Guarino et al. 2005);
Social scientists working in the target region: can provide information on
farming systems and crops.
(ii) Selection of target taxon/crop taxonomy. The generally accepted taxonomic
classification can be determined with the help of:
Target taxon experts;
National or global Floras;
Crop monographs;
Recent crop studies;
Crop databases, etc.
(iii) Design and creation of the ecogeographic, characterisation, evaluation and
farmer-based knowledge database structure.
A careful reflection on the types of data to be included in the database
should precede its creation. The collecting form (when surveying farmers
for LR information) should be strongly linked to this database meaning
that all fields in the collecting form are included in the database structure.
See ‘Additional materials and resources’ for an example of a questionnaire
used in interviewing farmers and of Passport Descriptors.
Identification of taxon/crop expertise
PHASE 1: PROJECT DESIGN
Seed system
and existing characterization and evaluation data Novel characterization
and evaluation data
Data analysis
PHASE 3: PRODUCTION
Data synthesis
Check for
duplicates
Georeferencing
Ascribe levels of
accuracy
GEOGRAPHIC
INFORMATION
Distribution maps
(vii) Data synthesis. The products that synthesise the data collated include the LR
national inventory (which contains raw data), the conspectus (that
summarizes all data collated for each LR) and the report (which interprets
the data obtained).
Table 6. Examples of types of data and the corresponding level of accuracy for LR
137
LEVEL OF
TYPE OF DATA
ACCURACY
1 Exact places (e.g., farms)
2 Within an area of 1 km2
3 Within an area of 10 km2
4 Within an area of 20 km2
Within an area of 100 km2
5
or more
137
Adapted from Magos Brehm (2009)
138
Krasteva et al. (2009)
139
Holly et al. (2009)
140
Mendes Moreira and Veloso (2009)
141
Weibull et al. (2009)
142
Scholten et al. (2004, 2009)
143
Poulsen (2009)
144
FAO Country Reports (2009)
Box 68. Inventory of landraces in Sweden
Potential LR growers were reached through several different channels: media (TV,
radio broadcasting, local and national newspapers, garden magazines),
exhibitions, seed growers, farmers, retirees’ organizations, regional organizations
for agricultural outreach, amongst others. Crop demonstration trials were also set
up by various organizations.
The growers of LR were asked to contact the Swedish programme for the diversity
of cultivated plants (POM) and provide as much documentation as possible about
their plant material. The growers were asked to answer the following questions:
• Where, by whom and how long had it been grown?
• Was something known of its origin?
• Was it still being grown?
• The name of the cultivar, if available.
• The age of the seed.
• The information on the seed bag.
• Some particular traits or characteristics of the cultivar.
The LR growers then sent their seeds for evaluation together with the above
information; the seeds were submitted to germination tests and/or seed
multiplication and finally stored at NordGen in Alnarp, southern Sweden and
safety-duplicated at Svalbard. The inventory of Swedish LR was then compiled.
Source: Weibull et al. (2009)
145
Strajeru et al. (2009)
146
Bajracharya et al. (2010)
147
Son et al. (2003)
148
Paprštein and Kloutvor (2001)
149
Negri (2005b)
150
Kell et al. (2009)
151
Wright et al. (2002) and http://www.scottishlandraces.org.uk/scotlandrace_index.htm
152
Bellon and Brush (1994)
Box 69. Inventory of landraces in Romania
The initial source of data for the LR inventory was a database (BIOGEN database)
designed and managed by the Suceava Gene bank (http://www.svgenebank.ro/)
holding information gathered during 20 years of systematic survey and collecting
missions. Three strategic areas with great genetic diversity of major crops such as
wheat, maize, bean, potato and faba bean, were surveyed (Suceava, Maramures
and Apuseni Mountains). Based on the importance in rural people’s diet, the high
number of LR, and the wide distribution in Romania, LR of Phaseolus vulgaris L.
were given priority. Agricultural extension services, local authorities, biology and
agronomy teachers, as well as local priests, who selected farmers recognized as
‘conservationists’, were interviewed and an inventory of LR was compiled. The
information collected was revalidated with farming communities during collecting
trips in 2007 and 2008.
Source: Strajeru et al. (2009)
Diversity of Zea mays L. diversity on a farm in the Chiapas region, Mexico (photo:
Carolina Camacho).
Box 71. Inventory of maize in Mexico
The project “Proyecto Global de Maíces Nativos” [Global Project of Native Maize]
was carried out by CONABIO, the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) and the Instituto Nacional de Ecología
(INE) in Mexico, between 2006 and 2010. This global project included 12 smaller
projects with specific objectives:
Collation and analysis of bibliographic information about the origin and
diversification of maize;
The digitizing of the information obtained from the main national ex situ
collection of maize and teosinte in Mexico (at the Unidad de Recursos Genéticos
del Banco de Germoplasma of the CEVAMEX - Campo Experimental del Valle de
México - of the INIFAP);
Ten projects aiming to collect seeds in most of the agricultural areas where
native maize is still cultivated.
The main products obtained with this global project were: (i) a document on the
centres of origin and genetic diversity of maize in Mexico (see Kato et al. 2009),
(ii) a database of all known maize LR and wild relatives (available from
http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/genes/pdf/proyecto/Anexo13_Base%20de%20d
atos/BaseMaicesNativos.xlsx) which comprise the collection of the main national
gene bank and the new collections resulted from the smaller ten projects. By
October 2010, the database included a total of 24,057 records (22,931 native maize,
599 teosinte and 527 Tripsacum wild relatives of maize).
The global project gathered about 235 researchers from 70 academic and research
institutes who participated in the collecting missions, characterisation of samples,
systematisation and collation of information on maize and teosinte.
Source: http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/genes/proyectoMaices.html
Wheat landrace growing near Tel Kalakh, Syria (photo: Nigel Maxted)
153
See e.g. Negri (2003)
154
See e.g. Torricelli et al. (2009)
155
IUCN (2001)
different categories and criteria have been suggested by some authors156,157,158;
however, to date there is no standardised methodology for threat assessment of
erosion or extinction for LR even though the need for such a methodology is
widely accepted. Meanwhile, the simple methodology described here can be
applied (Figure 31). It is a three stage process that can be run at the same time as
the LR survey is being carried out and the LR inventory prepared: (i) Definition of
indicators of threat, (ii) Identification of threats to LR diversity, and (iii)
Evaluation of the relative degree of threat.
Norwegian farmer, Johan Swärd, in a field where the rye LR ‘Svedjerug’ is grown;
this LR has been used by immigrating Finns in the eastern part of Norway in their
shifting and burning cultivation system (svedje) and is especially adapted to the
alkaline soil that arise from burning the vegetation. This LR was saved when seeds
were found in an old farmhouse and only 11 seeds germinated; Johan and a group
of farmer colleagues have started to grow the LR and have now a significant
market for flour of this particular LR; Johan Swärd received the “Plante Heritage
Prize” from The Norwegian Genetic Resource Centre in 2011 for his valuable work
in saving this LR from extinction (photo: Åsmund Asdal).
156
Joshi et al. (2004)
157
Porfiri et al. (2009)
158
Antofie et al. (2010)
Angelica archangelica subsp. archangelica (photo: Åsmund Asdal)
It is a native plant to the mountain areas of Norway (and other countries); it has a
long tradition as a vegetable and spice plant, and it has historically been the most
important plant for export from Norwegian agriculture to the continental Europe.
Farmers from Voss area (western part of Norway), through centuries, have
developed the LR “Vossakvann” which possess stems with more flesh than wild
growing specimens. Farms had their own fields with “Vossakvann” and it was also
mentioned in ancient law that intruding and stealing from Angelica gardens
caused severe penalties. The art of growing “Vossakvann” was forgotten, but some
fields of Vossakvann have survived. The farmer in the picture Knut Arvid Olde
(left) did not know what kind of plant/treasure he had on his farm before he was
told about it by the agricultural advisor Jorunn Ringheim. In recent years the
production of “Vossakvann” for several purposes and products has increased. The
LR was named a specific scientific name: Angelica archangelica subsp.
archangelica var. majorum.
DEFINE INDICATORS OF
THREAT
LR survey
IDENTIFY THREATS TO LR
DIVERSITY
COLLATION OF
INFORMATION ON THREATS
EVALUATE RELATIVE
DEGREE OF THREAT
Existing studies on
genetic erosion
At individual LR level At genetic/allelic level
New studies on
genetic erosion
PRODUCE THREAT ASSESSMENT
159
Padulosi and Dulloo (2012)
Box 75. Threat assessment of agricultural crops and landraces in Nepal
A method based on population, ecological, social, modernization and use criteria
was suggested to undertake threat assessment of crop species. The authors
suggested that combinations of criteria in these categories can be used to carry
out threat assessment of crop genotypes. In addition, the following threat
categories were proposed: Extinct (seed is locally not available for exchange or
planting), Endangered or Threatened (few households growing the LR in a small
area), Conservation Dependent (many households growing the LR in a small area
or vice versa), No Risk (commonly grown by many households), and Not
Evaluated or Data Not Available.
Source: Joshi et al. (2004)
The economic value of biodiversity and genetic resources has been defined160,161,162
and economists have developed a number of methods for assessing several
components of public goods which have been applied to biodiversity. However,
the main focus has been on the valuation of ecosystem services rather than
genetic resources per se.
There has been considerable debate over which criteria should be utilised when
undertaking a scheme of species prioritisation163,164. Potential criteria to consider
include threat of genetic erosion, endemicity, rarity, population decline, quality of
habitat, intrinsic biological vulnerability, current conservation status, recovery
potential, feasibility and sustainability of conservation, taxonomic uniqueness,
genetic distinctiveness, ecogeographic distribution, biological importance,
socio‐economic use, cultural importance, economic factors, legislation, ethical and
aesthetic considerations, and priorities of the conservation agency. Although
some of these criteria may be applied to LR diversity prioritisation, the socio-
economic aspects in particular are of fundamental importance in LR conservation
and therefore in LR prioritisation. In addition, numerous systems and methods for
setting priorities have been used to define priorities for the conservation of crop
wild relatives but none to LR diversity.
160
Flint (1991)
161
Shands (1994)
162
Drucker et al. (2001)
163
See e.g. Fitter and Fitter (1987)
164
See Maxted et al. (1997c)
Photo: Four varieties of potato grown locally in Cusco, Peru .
DEFINE PRIORITISATION
SCHEME
PRIORITY LR
Market with “Uzgen” rice (Os province, Kyrgyzstan) (photo: Pavol Hauptvogel).
(v) Definition of the prioritisation scheme. Similar to the selection of
prioritization criteria, the choice of the prioritization methodology (or
scheme) should be a decision made by the responsible national agency or
researcher. The complexity of the scheme will depend on the time available,
financial resources, data availability, etc. Prioritization schemes include
rule‐based, scoring and ranking systems, with or without weighting of
criteria, different combinations of criteria, etc. (see Section A.4 to contrast
with CWR prioritization).
(vi) Application of the prioritization criteria and scheme to the inventory: This
will culminate in the list of priority LR for conservation.
Box 81. Bolivian and Peruvian “Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)”
Study
The authors attempted to evaluate whether multiple conservation goals could be
optimised together with social equity when paying for the on-farm conservation of
LR, so as to generate agrobiodiversity conservation services. The authors selected
priority LR in the Bolivian and Peruvian Andes as case studies for the research.
Through a participatory process with local farmers (via community workshops
and interviews), and in the absence of adequate status data, LR that were
threatened (by replacement by more commercially favoured varieties) as well as
those historically important in the livelihoods of farmers and that were extinct
from their farming systems, were identified. Local scientists and agricultural
extension experts prepared a ranked list of the most threatened LR through
consideration of qualitative information on: (1) the area under cultivation for each
LR, (2) the number of farmers cultivating a specific landrace, (3) the level of
traditional knowledge associated with the utilization of that LR in farming, food
preparation, and for socio-cultural purposes, and (4) the amount of farmer stored
seeds available for each LR. In addition, as information on genetic traits was not
available, a dissimilarity analysis based on their agro-morphological
characteristics (e.g. colour and size of panicle, size and form of leaves, size of
plant), and resistance to specific weather conditions (e.g. frost, drought) was
carried out. Grain size and colour were found to be the most important
characteristics in distinguishing LR.
Finally, the LR ranked as being most under threat, were further prioritised based
on the dissimilarity information. Five priority quinoa LR in Bolivia (Chillpi Blanco,
Huallata, Hilo, Kanchis, Noveton) and four in Peru (Misa Quinua, Chullpi
Anaranjado, Janko Witulla, Cuchi Willa) were selected as priorities and were
included in a larger study that aimed at understanding whether, when paying for
conservation services, conservation goals could be optimised without
compromising social equity.
Source: Narloch et al. (2011)
165
Jump et al. (2008)
Photo: Taking a leaf sample from the original Finish 'Huvitus' local apple
variety for DNA identification at the Yläne village (Pöytyä municipality,
Finland ( (photo: Maarit Heinonen/MTT).
(vii) Identifying traits of interest for crop breeding. Two distinct but
complementary components of genetic variation have been identified. The first is
related to the functional diversity which has resulted from adaptive evolution due
to natural selection. The second relates to neutral alleles which results from
neutral evolutionary forces such as migration, mutation and genetic drift. The
relative importance of adaptive versus neutral variation in conservation genetics
has been extensively debated over the years166. Adaptive variation refers to alleles
(or quantitative traits) that affect fitness. They are the primary targets of natural
selection and reflect a species’ potential ability to adapt to changing
environments167. Adaptive genetic variation is evaluated in quantitative genetic
experiments under controlled and uniform environmental conditions. However,
the assessment of adaptive variation is very time consuming and quantitative
traits involved in adaptation are sometimes difficult to find. Moreover, since that
adaptive variation is the result of environmental and genetic factors, large sample
sizes are required (which might not be available for threatened populations) in
order to understand the contribution of these components to the overall variation.
Neutral genetic diversity on the other hand, refers to those alleles that have no
direct effect on a species’ fitness and are not affected by natural selection. They do
not provide information on the adaptive or evolutionary potential of populations
or species. This type of genetic diversity can be assessed using a wide range of
molecular markers. They include microsatellites and AFLP (Amplified Fragment
Length Polymorphism). The assessment of neutral genetic variation has been
frequently used as a shortcut to infer global genetic diversity and to support
strategies and management plans for the conservation of threatened taxa168.
The issue of whether a correlation between neutral and adaptive variation exists
has been debated and conclusions do not always agree. Some authors have found
that neutral and adaptive genetic diversity and differentiation are positively
correlated169, whereas other studies indicate that measurements of neutral
diversity have a very limited prediction ability of quantitative variation170 and thus
cannot be used as a surrogate of adaptive genetic data, at least for some traits.
Within the context of genetic conservation, especially under threat of climate
change, gene conservation strategies should focus on the adaptive capacity of
populations (and species) by considering their ‘individual plasticity’ (i.e. their
ability to respond to different environmental conditions), their adaptive genetic
diversity and the occurrence of natural selection that acts upon them, as well as
166
e.g. Bowen (1999), Fraser and Bernatchez (2001), Merilä and Crnokrak (2001), Reed and Frankham
(2001), McKay and Latta (2002), Holderegger et al. (2006)
167
e.g. Falconer and Mackay (1996), McKay and Latta (2002), van Tienderen et al. (2002)
168
e.g. Palacios and González‐Candelas (1999), Rottenberg and Parker (2003), Eckstein et al. (2006),
Watson‐Jones et al. (2006)
169
e.g. Merilä and Crnokrak (2001), Pearman (2001)
170
e.g. Reed and Frankham (2001, 2002)
their ability to disperse171. Adaptive variation assessment is therefore particularly
important since it allows the identification of the components of genetic diversity
responsible for the adaptation of populations to different conditions. Nevertheless,
adaptive studies are more time consuming and require more skilled staff. In
resume, ideally, an adaptive diversity study should be undertaken. If for reasons of
financial resources, time available or lack of skilled staff it is not possible to
undertake such studies, and assuming there is a positive correlation between
neutral and adaptive genetic diversity, then neutral genetic diversity results can
be used as a proxy of adaptive genetic diversity.
(viii) Establishing population priorities for conservation within a LR. The amount
and patterns of genetic diversity both within and between populations of a species,
genetic population structure, and common and localised alleles, are some of the
data that can be useful when prioritising populations for conservation. For
instance, if a LR of the same name that is grown at several different sites is found
to be genetically homogenous, then a single farm could carry out the conservation
activity; however, if different populations of a LR with the same name are
genetically distinct, several farms would need to be involved in their conservation
to ensure all genetic diversity within that particular LR is conserved.
171
Lefèvre (2007)
Along with taxonomic, ecogeographic, characterisation and evaluation data and
farmer-based knowledge, a National management plan for LR conservation,
whenever possible, include genetic information of the LR, not only to differentiate
and characterise LR, but also to detect which priority LR populations should be
targeted for in situ and ex situ conservation (i.e. those with the greatest amount of
genetic diversity and/or with interesting adapted alleles, etc.), and to help detect
and thus prevent LR diversity genetic erosion. Figure 34 illustrates the process of
collating genetic diversity data on LR. It is necessary to know: (i) whether there
are pre-existing genetic studies on the LR, (ii) whether there are financial
resources to undertake (further) genetic studies, (iii) whether staff can carry out a
genetic study, (iv) whether farmers’ perceived value of a LR can be used as a proxy
of genetic information (if resources and expertise are not available for ii and iii).
Finally, a genetic erosion monitoring scheme should be implemented in order to
detect changes in genetic diversity of the LR (see B.12. Monitoring of landraces on-
farm).
LR inventory and Existing genetic diversity
ecogeographic studies in target crops/LR?
analysis
NO YES
Funding to undertake
genetic study?
NO YES
GENETIC DIVERSITY
ASSESSMENT
172
see Bioversity and The Christensen Fund (2009) for the complete list of farmers’ knowledge
descriptors
173
see e.g. Mkumbira et al. (2003), Chiwona‐Karltun et al. (2004)
B.7.3. Examples and applied use of LR genetic diversity studies
There is now an extensive literature associated with gap analysis which essentially
identifies areas in which selected elements of biodiversity are under-
represented178. Nevertheless, it is almost entirely restricted to identifying gaps in
habitat or ecosystem conservation, not gaps within existing species or genetic
diversity conservation. The use of this technique to identify gaps in networks of
protected habitats for in situ conservation of genetic resources, namely for CWR,
has already been mentioned179. It is worth stressing that environmental gap
analysis focuses on in situ conservation alone, whereas for PGRFA conservation
both in situ and ex situ conservation would be considered equally as
complementary conservation techniques. A systematic genetic gap analysis
methodology for identifying gaps within a crop gene pool and within individual
species has been developed and illustrated with the case of African Vigna wild
relatives and LR. The study aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of current in situ
and ex situ conservation actions and identifying the ‘gaps’, thus informing the
development of a conservation plan for the crop gene pool180. More recently, a gap
174
Noss and Cooperrider (1999)
175
Eken et al. (2004)
176
Rodrigues et al. (2004)
177
Langhammer et al. (2007)
178
E.g. Margules et al. (1988), Margules (1989), Margules and Pressey (2000), Allen et al. (2001),
Balmford (2003), Brooks et al. (2004), Dietz and Czech (2005), Riemann and Ezcurra (2005)
179
See Ingram and Williams (1993)
180
See Maxted et al. (2008b)
analysis methodology based on GIS tools has been developed specifically for crop
gene pools181.
Ecogeographic, taxonomic and farmers’ knowledge on LR (see B.4. National
inventory of landraces), as well as threat (see B.5. Threats and threat assessment)
and genetic diversity (see B.7. Genetic data analysis of priority landraces)
assessments provide information that helps identify gaps in the conservation of
LR. Figure 35 summarises how these types of data feed onto a gap analysis study.
Conservation gaps can be detected at different levels, both in situ and ex situ : (i)
individual LR level (LR not conserved versus conserved), (ii) ecogeographic level
(for a particular LR, areas/environmental conditions not covered by in situ or ex
situ conservation activities versus those covered), (iii) trait level (specific LR
populations that present a particular trait of interest that are not conserved versus
populations with that same trait that are), (iv) genetic variability of a specific trait
(specific LR populations that are genetically diverse for a specific trait that is not
conserved versus those that are). The level at which gap analysis can be
undertaken depends on the type of data available for the study. It should be
highlighted that trait and genetic data are not always available and that the
collation of information de novo may not be possible due to resource limitations.
Therefore, in the absence of ‘real’ trait/genetic information, morphological
analysis and traditional knowledge (farmers’ perceived diversity) can be used
instead.
The result of an in situ or ex situ LR gap analysis is a list of LR populations that
require active on-farm or ex situ conservation. Figure 5 illustrates both the in situ
and ex situ gap analysis methodologies.
181
Bioversity International et al. (2009) and also see R‐package GapAnalysis available at: http://r‐forge.r‐
project.org/R/?group_id=645
Collecting and taking seeds for evaluation in Troyan region (Bulgaria) (photo:
Tsvetelina Stoilova) (from project supported by Global Crop Diversity Trust
entitled "Enrichment diversity of Vigna and Phaseolus germplasm collections -
evaluation, maintenance and better utilization in correspondence with global
climate change”).
ECOGEOGRAPHIC AND GENETIC DIVERSITY
THREAT ASSESSMENT
TAXONOMIC DIVERSITY ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT
LR national inventory
GAP ANALYSIS
Figure 18. Landrace diversity in situ and ex situ gap analysis methodology
B.8.2. Methodology for LR gap analysis
In situ and ex situ gap analysis can be carried out at different levels depending on
the information available.
Individual LR level: At the individual LR level, the gap analysis is undertaken to
ascertain whether the target LR are actively conserved on-farm or in seed systems
and whether they are adequately represented in ex situ collections.
(iii) In situ. Review on-farm activities and seed systems that maintain LR.
Compare the LR inventory with those populations known to be actively
conserved in situ to detect priority LR not actively conserved. GAPS = LR
diversity not actively conserved in situ.
(iv) Ex situ. Review the ex situ accessions in gene banks and field gene banks, via
direct contact with gene banks or via on-line databases (e.g. EURISCO,
GENESYS, Singer). Compare the LR inventory with those populations known
to be actively conserved ex situ to detect priority LR not actively conserved.
GAPS = LR diversity not conserved ex situ.
Ecogeographic level: At the ecogeographic level, the gap analysis is undertaken to
ascertain whether the whole ecogeographic range of individual LR are represented
in situ/ex situ. Environmental data can be used as a proxy for abiotic traits such as
extreme temperatures, drought, etc.
(iii) In situ: a comparison between ecogeographic range of individual LR and that
element of the range that is conserved formally on-farm will help target new
in situ activities. GAPS = ecogeographic areas not covered by on-farm
activities.
(iv) Ex situ: a comparison between individual LR ecogeographic diversity and
where that diversity has been previously sampled and conserved ex situ will
help target further collections and active ex situ conservation. GAPS =
ecogeographic areas where previous sampling and ex situ conservation has
not occurred or where further germplasm collection is required to
supplement existing collections, especially if the collection was made over 10
LR generations previously.
See figure 38 for the methodology developed for gap analysis of crops72.
Trait level: At the trait level, the gap analysis is undertaken to ascertain whether
specific LR populations with a particular trait of interest (e.g. gluten content) are
conserved in situ/ex situ.
(iii) In situ. A comparison between LR distribution among farmers together with
trait/genetic/farmers’ perceived diversity data and where it is actively
conserved will help target new in situ activities. GAPS = specific populations
with the trait of interest/genetic characteristic (or high diversity, etc.) not
actively conserved in situ.
(iv) Ex situ. A comparison between LR distribution among farmers together with
trait/genetic/farmers’ perceived diversity information and where it has
previously been collected will help target further collections and active ex
situ conservation. GAPS = specific populations with the trait/genetic
diversity/farmers’ perceived diversity of interest not conserved ex situ.
GIS-based predictive characterization can be used to identify those populations
that are likely to contain desirable traits (e.g. insect pest resistance). Focused
Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS) is a predictive characterisation
technique and can be used in this context. The basic steps of a FIGS analysis for
LR are:
182
Ramírez‐Villegas et al. (2010)
Gather characterisation and evaluation data regarding the trait of interest
from ex situ collections databases and georeference the samples that
contain the trait of interest;
Gather environmental information (e.g. climate, soil, elevation, topography)
(see ‘Additional materials and resources’ for sources of data) and extract
environmental data for each LR accession/population using a GIS software
(e.g. DIVA-GIS);
Utilise the existing characterization and evaluation data to identify sites
where the required variation exists;
Produce profiles of the sites identified above in terms of environmental,
ecological and any other relevant data;
Look for similar environmental profiles amongst other sites and develop a
sampling strategy using clustering, principal component analysis etc.;
Identify whether ex situ accessions are available or active on-farm
conservation is carried out and whether it is necessary to collect de novo
from the identified sites in order to complete the ex situ collection or to
target populations for in situ conservation.
Box 87. Ex situ gap analysis at geographic and trait levels in the pearl millet
germplasm
A review of the ex situ accessions of pearl millet LR from Asia conserved at the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) gene
bank was undertaken. Based on passport and characterization data and using GIS
tools, geographical gaps (areas that were not represented ex situ) as well as
diversity in one or more traits gaps were identified. Geographical gaps included
134 distinct districts of 14 provinces in India and 12 districts of Punjab province in
Pakistan. Gaps in diversity for one or more traits comprised a total of 208 distinct
districts in 12 provinces. Among all districts, gaps in the diversity for all traits
were found in India; gaps in the diversity of panicle length and width were found
in Pakistan, gaps in the diversity for one or more traits and at the same time
common to geographical gaps were identified in India.
Source: Upadhyaya et al. (2010)
What are the in situ conservation goals of a National management plan for LR
conservation?
A National management plan for LR conservation aims at the development and
implementation of a national network of on-farm sites where long-term active
conservation (in order to safeguard their genetic diversity as well as
traditional/local knowledge associated with LR maintenance and use) and
sustainable use of LR is carried out to contribute to food security, especially in
marginal rural communities.
YES NO
PRELIMINARY SELECTION
In situ conservation gaps In combination with
OF ON‐FARM SITES
Which approach?
183
Rebelo (1992a, 1992b)
184
Rebelo (1994)
Single-LR on-farm conservation sites. If we look at particular traits/genetic
variability/farmers’ perceived diversity or even ecogeographic diversity,
then the multi-LR on-farm conservation sites are unlikely to broadly
represent this diversity for each LR; therefore, we would have to look at the
single LR level and choose the sites that are more diverse. The main
objective for setting up on-farm conservation sites is to ensure that
maximum genetic diversity of the target LR is captured; therefore, if
financial and human resources are available, a single-LR site for
exceptionally important LR can be established. Using this approach,
specific LR diversity of interest is more likely to be captured by the national
network of on-farm conservation sites. Single-LR sites can be based on
geographic location or other types of data (e.g. particular trait of interest,
genetic variability, farmers’ perceived diversity, and ecogeographic
diversity data).
Complementarity analysis can be used to identify the minimum number of
sites needed to conserve all diversity of interest of a particular LR within
the minimum number of sites. The precise number of on-farm sites needed
to ensure the conservation of maximum diversity will vary from LR to LR
and is dependent on the distribution of the diversity within the LR. To
establish the minimum number of sites, there is a need to review the intra-
species pattern of diversity and the relative diversity found within and
between LR populations. However, this does require possible extensive
sampling of LR populations and more in depth studies. If such studies have
not been undertaken or resources are not available to carry them out, it is
recommended that five LR populations are conserved from the most
ecogeographically diverse sites185.
(vii) Incorporation of threat data in the selection of on-farm conservation sites.
Climate prediction maps, whenever available, can be used, as well as
knowledge of other existing threats affecting sites. Those non-localised
threats, which impact globally and cannot be avoided (such as climate
change) should be used to select those areas less affected, hence ensuring
the long-term preservation of LR.
(viii) Final selection on on-farm conservation sites. The final selection of on-farm
conservation sites is made after screening the preliminary selection of sites
(together with in situ conservation gaps that resulted from the gap analysis)
with the information on non-localised threats affecting those sites.
(ix) Production of action plans/managements plans. These summarise the
National management plan for LR conservation developed for single or
multi-LR and can be:
LR Action Plans: produced when a single-LR approach is carried out; it
should contain information on taxonomy, description, image, distribution,
ecogeography, current conservation status and action, threat assessment,
uses, additional conservation action required, research and monitoring
requirements, incorporation in existing national or local conservation
185
Following Lawrence and Marshall (1997).
initiatives, farmers’ knowledge on the production systems, history of
cultivation, traits of interest, etc.
On-Farm Site Management Plans: produced if a multi-LR site is set up; it
should contain information on every LR within the site, including the
information listed above for the LR Action Plans as well as information on
the management of that specific site as a whole.
B.9.3. Examples and applied use of the establishment of LR in situ
conservation goals
Box 90. Methodology for identifying sites for on-farm conservation activities
Recently, Negri et al. (2012) developed a methodology for the identification of
areas devoted to on-farm conservation activities when on-farm activities are
scarcely existent, which was applied to LR diversity in Central Italy. This
methodology includes: LR data collection and organisation, LR mapping, and
identification of areas where LR are present. These potential conservation areas
for on-farm activities are then prioritised according to: LR density, richness and
evenness, agro-ecosystem diversity, protected areas presence, including or nearby
CWR presence and threat of extinction (see Figure below). These criteria were
applied in sequence and a threshold was defined for each criterion below which
potential areas are not admitted to the following criterion.
Source: Negri et al. (2012)
186
From Jarvis et al. (2011)
Establishment of in situ LR conservation goals
YES NO
Alternative on‐farm
Ensure local crop diversity is
conservation site
valued among farmers
Within protected areas (PA)? NO YES
Ensure farmers benefit from YES NO
the use of local crop diversity
187
FAO (2009)
Farmer shelling bean legumes (photo: Vojtec Holubec).
(xi) Find out whether the priority target on-farm conservation sites occur within
formal protected areas. Many protected areas (PAs) contain considerable
areas of agricultural land where numerous LR have been maintained by
farmers. However, it is highly unlikely that management plans of those areas
incorporate measures to secure LR diversity. By conserving locally important
LR, PAs can add another dimension to their conservation commitment by
also contributing to food security. Either within PAs or outside them, a
national network of on-farm sites to conserve national LR diversity is
desirable. Conservation agencies and NGOs, namely those in charge of
managing land for conservation, should include conservation and
management plans for LR in the management plans of those areas, and also
establish community seed banks for local LR to help ensure their continued
availability and use.
(xii) Ensure local crop diversity exist in sufficient quantities within the
production systems. Lack of sufficient diversity within production systems
can be due to several reasons
(xiii) Ensure local crop diversity is accessible to farmers. Access to diversity may
be constrained by several factors
(xiv) Ensure local crop diversity is valued among farmers. Farmers may not value
local crop diversity for several reasons
(xv) Ensure farmers benefit from the use of local crop diversity. Farmers may not
benefit from the use of local crop diversity for several reasons. The provision
of government incentives is a possibility and if they are to be used, they must
be linked to some form of guarantee from the landowner to ensure the LR
thrives; therefore, a management agreement including a conservation
prescription is required.
188
Adapted from Jarvis et al. (2011).
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
traditional variety as material is already
closer to farmer communities
Cross site visits for farmers and local
X X X
extension workers
Microfinance or credit schemes to enable
X
purchase of local materials
On-farm experimental diversity blocks X X X X
Field or lab trials comparing traditional and
X X X
modern varieties
Community Biodiversity Register X X
Literacy training, particularly for poor and
X X
vulnerable groups
Improving
information Variety information databases made in
X X
and farmer friendly formats
availability of
Setting up information systems and internet
information X X X
connections for farmer access to information
Small weather stations that can be linked to
X X
internet sites
Rural radio programmes that includes talks
X X
on the importance of crop diversity
Drama, music and poetry travelling shows X X
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
that have crop diversity as a theme
Painting and art competitions that reward
farmer groups for knowledge and X X
descriptions of agricultural diversity
Participatory crop improvement
(Participatory Plant Breeding, Participatory X X X
Varietal Selection)
Using genomics to improve in situ crop
X X X
Improving populations
and Changing the formal breeding institutions to
management increase the use of farmer selected materials
of traditional X X X
and traditional varieties in their
varieties programmes
materials
Planting of intra-specific mixtures to reduce
X X X
pests and diseases
Improve seed storage facilities and methods X X
Seed cleaning/treatment X X
Shift retailers to use different processing
X X
equipment that can use diversified materials
Improved
processing Training of producers in improved
processing techniques and providing credit X X
to acquire processing equipment
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
Plant varieties common knowledge (VCK) X X X
Registration and release of farmers’ varieties
X X X
with acceptance of enhanced bulk varieties
Geographic indications X X X
Alternatives Quality declared seed (QDS) (that certify the
and X X X
vendor rather than the seed)
modifications
to seed Truthfully labelled seed laws that focus on
X X X
certification seed quality rather than seed purity
systems Registries of native crops X X X
Links between intellectual property rights
X
protection and benefit-sharing
Plant variety protection systems adapted to
X
farmers varieties
Market promotion through taxes and
X
subsidies
Market creation for traditional varieties or
Market products from traditional varieties including X X X
creation and niche markets
promotion
Education and financial support to farmer’s
X X
groups to develop a marketing strategy
Micro-credit facilities to set up small X
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
businesses, particularly for rural men and
women
Advertisement campaigns to improve
consumer and retailer awareness of X X
important traits (nutritional, adaptive, etc.)
Cook books with traditional recipes;
gardening books that promote traditional
X X
varieties for particular management
practices
Fair trade price premiums – Eco-labelling
(paying the full production value through X X X
price premiums)
Organisation of meetings involving market-
chain actors to discuss how to enhance X X
market potential
Private and public partnership for the
Building
construction of small infrastructure for the X X
partnerships
production of a better quality product
and trusts
Strengthened and cooperative extension
services that include farmers are more
X X X X
demand driven or establishment of new
farmers’-governed local institutions
Changing Advertising and social campaigns that X X
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
norms promote better adapted varieties that reduce
the need for chemical inputs to change
social norms such as nutritional cultural
values of food
School biology curriculum include
traditional crop varieties as agricultural X X X
resource and ecosystem service
Gender sensitive response policy X X X X
Environmentally sensitive areas (ESA)
X X
include high agro-biodiversity areas
Agro-biodiversity Zones X X
Agro-biodiversity Ecotourism X X
Promoting Organic farming and organic seed breeding
ecological with traditional variety used as planting X X X
land materials
management
practices Investment in agricultural research that
includes the use of agricultural biodiversity X X X X
within the production system
Biodiversity included in Environmental
Impact Assessment of individual projects, X X X X
policies and programmes
Payment Payment for Environmental Services (PES) X X X
STEPS
(vi) Ensure local crop (vii) Ensure (viii) Ensure (ix) Ensure
GENERAL diversity exists in local crop local crop farmers benefit
ACTIONS
CATEGORY sufficient quantities diversity is diversity is from the use of
within the production accessible to valued among local crop
systems farmers farmers diversity
schemes for Linking upstream and downstream
ecosystem X X X
communities
services
Sharing of monetary benefits X
B.10.3. Examples and applied use of the implementation of on-farm
conservation priorities
Box 96. Strategies for sustainable conservation and use of legumes in Ghana
In this study, strategies aiming at the conservation of legumes, including their
collection, characterization and evaluation, are presented. Among specific issues
regarding ex situ conservation (e.g. collection of germplasm, characterisation,
preliminary and further evaluation, improving longevity of seeds, development of
core collections, molecular characterisation), the authors also explored strategies
that improve seed flow within and between communities and the in situ
characterization of LR for the genetic improvement of legumes. These include:
diversity fairs, diversity theatres, participatory breeding, diversity blocks,
community biodiversity register and biodiversity fairs.
Diversity fairs: local seed markets and fairs that constitute an important seed and
local knowledge exchange system. These fairs are threatened by the formal sector
of seed production and distribution. In Ghana, national farmers’ days are usually
held to honour selected farmers who display their produce. However, the selected
farmers usually produce high yielding varieties, but some of them may still
cultivate LR. Diversity fairs are thus organized to: (i) recognize knowledgeable
farmers, (ii) locate areas of high diversity, (iii) identify and locate endangered LR,
(iv) identify key farmers who maintain high diversity of cultivars, (v) prepare an
inventory of crop genetic resources, and (vi) empower local communities in
controlling their genetic resources and develop the concept of community gene
banks that link formal and informal seed supply system.
Diversity theatres: help raise awareness about the importance of local crop
resources while celebrating local culture. They may be based on traditional stories
and myths that involve local crops, and are usually organised by local actors and
community groups. Workshops, rural poetry, folk song competition and local food
fairs can also be included.
Participatory breeding: involves both farmers and researchers in the conservation
and improvement of crop resources (Amanda 2000). Participatory plant breeding
and participatory varietal selection are used to develop varieties based on farmers’
preferences with access to germplasm and technologies from the gene bank. The
role of the farmer in plant breeding is therefore acknowledged by the formal plant
breeding sector (Sthapit 2001). Through this activity, researchers locate diversity,
identify uses for different crops, and characterise the traits that farmers perceive
as valuable (Sperling and Berkowitz 1994).
Diversity blocks: through the involvement of local communities, this allows the
characterisation of LR under farmer management conditions. While farmers use
traditional management practices, researchers observe and record
agromorphological characteristics. The characterised diversity may then be
selected for diversity fairs.
Community biodiversity register (CBR): this is a mechanism that allows local
communities to keep records about local crop diversity and associated knowledge.
The register is maintained and can be accessed by farmers or local institutions
acting as a tool for biodiversity conservation (Sthapit 2001). Information in the
register may include: LR names, name of donors, associated local knowledge and
uses, the traditional and non-traditional passport data (e.g. agro-morphological
characteristics, agro-ecological characteristics, and cultural importance). The
information is provided by farmers and maintained centrally, whereas the seeds
are stored by individual farmers that allow access to all community members.
Source: Aboagye (2007)
What are the ex situ conservation goals of a National management plan for LR
conservation?
A National management plan for LR conservation aims at the development and
implementation of a national network of on-farm sites where long-term active
conservation of LR is carried out. In parallel, ex situ conservation should be
undertaken as a conservation backup (for reintroduction in case of crop loss) but
also to permit easy access to these materials for crop improvement and research.
Ex situ and in situ conservation should, therefore, be seen as complementary
strategies that contribute to food security and poverty alleviation.
189
CBD (1992)
The ex situ seed conservation of LR may be split between: formal gene (seed)
banking and community seed banks.
The establishment and implementation of formal ex situ LR seed conservation in
gene banks includes three steps: (i) Overview of ex situ conservation gaps, (ii)
Selection of LR and farms for targeted collecting, and (iii) Collecting and curation
standard procedures of a gene bank. Similarly the implementation of community
seed banks must address similar issues but here the goal is more to provide a
buffer against individual seasonal crop failure and loss of seed for subsequent
sowing; the community seed bank offers a buffer against the bad years, as well
extending LR access to the broader community. As such community seed banks
have an important role in ensuring food security, especially in arid or semi-arid
lands where food is in short supply after extended periods of drought. Therefore,
in a global change scenario where climatic changes are already happening,
community seed banks are of the utmost importance. Also community seed banks
provide an important means of raising awareness of the National management
plan for LR conservation and the promotion of local LR diversity conservation and
use.
Ex situ conservation?
Collecting
Seed storage
Seed distribution
SEED UTILISATION
Box 99. Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS) community seed bank
CIKS has been actively involved in setting up farmers’ seed banks in villages in
different parts of Tamilnadu, India. 125 villages in four districts are covered,
involving around 3000 farmers. More than 130 varieties of rice and 50 vegetable
varieties are being conserved in farmers’ fields and experimental farms. These
farmers’ community seed banks allow efficient seed exchange, distribution,
utilisation, evaluation, characterisation and multiplication of traditional varieties,
as well as the survey, collection and documentation of existing varieties. Farmers
are encouraged to grow these traditional varieties organically, and marketing is
supported through a marketing scheme. As the main result, the community seed
bank facilitates the conservation of traditional varieties which eventually will be
managed by the farming community itself. In addition, an in situ conservation
centre was set up and serves as a model from which other farming communities
can learn.
Source: CIKS (unknown date)
Box 100. Community seed banks in the Taraka District, Kenya
Community seed banks were implemented in the Tharaka District (Kenya) ―a
marginal drought-prone area where agriculture is dominated by smallholder
farmers―in order to ensure the availability of local varieties after extended
drought periods, thus enhancing food security. Long periods of drought lead to
crop failure and consequently to unavailability of seeds for planting the following
year. In addition, poor farm households are usually so desperate for food that they
use seed stocks for food. Community seed banks were set up and seeds were
collected. Each farmer deposited two portions of at least 1kg of seed of each
variety they grow: one portion for their own use and one for the group. The portion
allocated to the group was used for income generation or delivered to other
farmers who seek new varieties. Seed quality is controlled and varieties are
properly documented. Farmers identified their training needs, such as leadership
skills and group development, and attended training workshops. These workshops
were also useful to identify other local varieties and efficient traditional storage
practices, to select the most suitable varieties for bulking, and to train farmers in
for instance, seed crop husbandry, soil fertility, pests and diseases, seed
harvesting and post-harvest management of seed (e.g. treatment against pest
damage and cleaning). These community seed banks have enabled community
members to gain access to seeds, thus enhancing food security. Conservation of
local PGRFA has been achieved and awareness of seed security has been raised.
Communities have developed close links among them and improved their
confidence in their potential for self-development.
As an example, in 1997, a community seed bank was formed covering two villages,
which provides seeds of food staples such as sorghum, millet and cow peas, but
also other minor crops. Since 1997 it has expanded its collection from 57 to 140
varieties.
Source: Intermediate Technology Development Group (unknown date)
Dulloo ME, Thormann, I and Engels J (2011) Standards and best practices
for genebank management. European Plant Genetic Resources
Conference 2011 “To Serve and Conserve”. 5-7 April. Wageningen, The
Netherlands. Available from
http://www.slideshare.net/BioversityInternational/standards-and-best-
practices-for-genebank-management [Accessed January 2012].
Bioversity International training modules on plant collecting:
WW
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/training/training_materials.html#
W
c10721 [Accessed January 2012].
Bioversity International training modules on ex situ
WW conservation/genebank management:
W http://www.bioversityinternational.org/training/training_materials.html#
c10715 [Accessed January 2012].
WW Crop Genebank Knowledge Base. Available from:
W http://cropgenebank.sgrp.cgiar.org/ [Accessed January 2012].
ICRISAT. Managing and enhancing the use of germplasm – strategies and
WW
methodologies. Available from: http://www.icrisat.org/gene-bank-
W
manual.htm [Accessed January 2012].
B.12. Monitoring of landraces on-farm
B.12.1. Overview
Once the on-farm conservation sites are established they provide an opportunity
to monitor and assess short and longer term changes in LR diversity, which can
help form the basis of assessing levels of LR diversity and so address the goals of
the CBD Strategic Plan191 of reducing loss of genetic diversity, particularly of crop
species. Therefore, a monitoring scheme should be included in the site
management plans, and should start immediately after site establishment.
Monitoring of genetic erosion can be carried out using the materials conserved ex
situ.
LR monitoring can be carried out at two levels: (i) individual LR, and (ii) LR
genetic diversity. In addition, LR can be monitored for evolution and adaptation to
environmental conditions.
190
Iriondo et al. (2008)
191
CBD (2010b)
Establishment of in situ conservation goals
192
, where pi represents the relative proportion of the individuals in group I; and s is the number of categories (varieties). The greater the value of the
index, the more diverse the community.
193
, where N represents the total number of organisms of all species; ni is the number of individuals in the ith variety; it ranges from 0 to 1. The closer to 0
the index, the more diverse the community.
LEVEL OF METHODOLOGY PARAMETERS TO OBJECTIVES INDICATORS
MONITORING MEASURE
genetic erosion from
comparing the inventories
and field observations.
To discuss the reasons for
varietal change and loss of
LR diversity.
Genetic erosion 1. Genetic analysis – Genetic diversity To detect changes in the Decrease in richness of
within a LR neutral diversity (expected genetic composition within a diversity.
heterozygosity) (richness population of a LR.
of diversity). To detect changes in the
Average number of genetic composition among Decrease in evenness of
alleles per locus different populations of the diversity.
(evenness of diversity). same LR.
Box 103. Genetic erosion of rice landrace diversity in South and Southeast
Asia
Almost 13,000 ex situ accessions of rice LR from Bangladesh, Cambodia, India,
Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam, collected over a
33 year period (1962‒1995) and conserved at the International Rice Research
Institute (IRRI) were studied regarding their genetic diversity using 12 allozyme
loci. Individual LR accessions were grouped according to the date of collection, or
when absent, according to the date of acquisition by IRRI (as a proxy of the date of
collection). Nei’s expected heterozygosity (genetic diversity) (Nei 1978) and
average number of alleles per locus (Lewis and Zaykin 2001) were estimated, and
414 PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT
linear regression of these variables was performed against the fixed variables of
the year of collection and population size (where population size varied).
Additionally, analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) was used to compare
variances among populations and to assess population differentiation over time.
In contrary to what was expected, the authors did not detect significant reduction
of available genetic diversity in the studied material. In addition, a strong link
between numbers of LR collected (and therefore extant) and genetic diversity was
found. Hence, it can be used as an indicator to detect loss of genetic diversity in
the future.
Source: Ford-Lloyd et al. (2009)
General utilisation
The general users of LR are people at large, whose support may be essential to the
long-term political and financial viability of a conservation site. Commonly, the
general public ultimately finances the establishment and continuation of a
network of on-farm conservation sites through taxation. In addition, some
members of the general public may wish to visit the on-farm site.
Professional utilisation
Professional users include researchers, pre-breeders and breeders who
characterise, evaluate and screen PGRFA for novel traits using various techniques
such as morphological analysis, genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, high-
throughput phenotyping and GIS-based predictive characterization as the basis
for improved crop breeding. Professional users can utilise LR conserved in the on-
farm conservation sites but more often they will utilise the samples of these
populations stored ex situ in gene banks.
LR on-farm conservation sites can act as in situ research platforms for field
experimentation. There is a real need for a better understanding of species
dynamics within conservation areas to aid the sustainable management of the
specific taxa, but also as a more general experimental tool for ecological and
genetic studies of in situ conserved LR. Research activities based on the material
conserved should be encouraged as they provide another use for the material
conserved and another justification for establishing the conservation site.
Monitoring studies (such as of genetic diversity changes), as required by the COP
194
CBD (2010b)
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 420
Morphological observations and physiological measurements of beans in
Cherni Osam, Bulgaria (photo: Tsvetelina Stoilova)
195
Negri et al. (2012)
423 PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT
context of the national LR inventories that are planned in Finland, Italy and the
United Kingdom will test and refine the descriptors, but the methodology used for
data collation and the descriptors are deliberately generic so that they will have
applicability globally.
B.14.2. Methodology
Information on landraces is available from wide range of sources, but retrieving it
presents a number of challenges. Firstly, in existing databases, such as those
managed by plant gene banks, landrace accessions are generally not distinguished
from modern varieties, although this issue should not arise if the FAO/IPGRI
Multi-crop Passport Descriptors are used as the SAMPSTAT descriptor allows for
the distinction between LR and other types of collection sample. Secondly,
different scientists use different definitions of LR, so what is a LR to one is not to
another. Thirdly, the crop variety name can sometimes be used to guide decisions
as to whether a variety is a LR (for example, if the name of a LR is directly
associated with a particular geographic location), but this is not a reliable method
because modern varieties can also be given similar names. Furthermore, obtaining
information about varieties that people grow for business purposes can be
hindered by issues of commercial sensitivity, concerns about the potential legal
repercussions associated with national listing of unregistered varieties and
insufficient time and resources available to the business to respond. These
challenges are not insurmountable but they do demand a carefully considered and
tested approach (particularly with regard to obtaining information from
commercial enterprises) and a considerable amount of time.
LR Data were collated from various sources, including LR, maintainers, PGR
experts, governmental documents, NGOs, commercial companies, gene banks,
websites and the literature. The types of data collated will fall into four basic
types:
• Ecogeographic data (taxonomic, ecological, geographic and genetic:
passport),
• Field population data (passport),
• Conservation management data (curatorial),
• Characterization and evaluation data (descriptive).
Each of these data types are collated using some type of standard descriptor. A
descriptor may be defined as “any attribute referring to a population, accession or
taxon which the conservationist uses for the purpose of describing, conserving
and using this material”. Descriptors are abstract in a general sense, and it is the
descriptor states that conservationists actually record and utilise. Standard
descriptors for ecogeographic, field and conservation management data are
included in the Descriptors for web-enabled national in situ landrace
inventories196, while formal characterization and evaluation descriptors are
associated with various standardized ‘Crop descriptor lists’ published by FAO,
196
Negri et al. (2012)
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 424
Bioversity, UPOV (see http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications.html).
It is important to stress that standard lists of descriptors should be used when they
are available. The use of well-defined, tested and rigorously implemented
descriptor lists for scoring descriptors considerably simplifies all operations
concerned with data recording, such as updating and modifying data, information
retrieval, exchange, data analysis and transformation. When data are recorded,
they should be classified and interpreted with a pre-defined list of descriptors and
descriptor states to consult. This clearly saves a considerable amount of time and
effort associated with data entry. The use of lists ensures uniformity, while
reducing errors and problems associated with text synonyms.
Experts’ meeting
An experts’ meeting was called involving all those stakeholders with knowledge or
interest in LR conservation and use to discuss the general project strategy and to
share existing knowledge of how to obtain information on UK vegetable landraces,
how to make contact with landrace maintainers, and a possible strategy for
obtaining germplasm samples for ex situ conservation. The specific objectives of
the meeting were to:
1. Provide an introduction to the project and discuss the proposed project
strategy, including the following specific objectives:
a. Review official government documentation and scientific/popular
literature
b. Review NGO and commercial company knowledge and holdings of
landrace diversity
c. Review ex situ seed bank holdings of landraces
d. Discuss LR diversity with LR maintainers.
2. Share knowledge of how to achieve each of the above objectives (e.g.,
specific contacts, literature sources, government documents, relevant
NGOs, commercial companies and seed banks).
3. Discuss a procedure for obtaining germplasm samples for ex situ
conservation and outline a strategy for ensuring sufficient material is
duplicated in the appropriate seed banks.
4. Provide examples of existing successful on-farm vegetable LR
conservation projects in the UK (or elsewhere) that can be used for
197
Kell et al. (2009)
198
Maxted et al. (2009)
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 425
reference purposes when formulating conservation recommendations for
other vegetable LR.
5. Provide examples of the use of LR germplasm in formal crop improvement
programmes that can be used for reference purposes in the final report to
Defra.
Ecogeographic data
LR population data
LR NATIONAL CHECKLIST LR NATIONAL INVENTORY COMMUNITY
BIODIVERSITY REGISTER
Conservation
management data
MONITORING – detect changes
Characterisation and
evaluation data
REAVALUATION OF NATIONAL LR
CONSERVATION STRATEGY
Figure 26. English and Welsh vegetable LR inventory LR data entry module
C.2. Recommendations
Key recommendation 1: The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture considers the requirement for the establishment of a global network
for in situ conservation of CWR and LR diversity.
Given the known value of CWR and LR in crop improvement and their potential
value in climate change mitigation and future food security, it is perhaps
surprising that there has to date been no systematic attempt at global level to
conserve CWR and LR diversity. For CWR diversity this has largely been because
they fall between the remit of the nature conservation community who mainly
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 433
focus on rare or threatened wild plant species and habitats, and the
agrobiodiversity conservation community who focus on conservation of intra-crop
variation. While for LR diversity so little is known about global levels of LR
diversity and the task to understand that diversity for all crops is so gargantuan
that it has yet to tackled. In many cases, the selection of global PAs has been ad
hoc, depending largely on previous land use, ownership or human habitation,
recreation and tourism, or historical protection―CWR or LR conservation has not
been a consideration. Stolten et al. (2006) listed PAs reported to contain CWR
species and while this list provides a useful initial indication of which CWR may
be found within existing PAs, it is important to stress that in these cases the CWR
themselves are unlikely to be actively managed. CWR have the benefit of being
wild plant species, so much of the information available for CWR is a result of
botanical study not specific study as CWR species, LR do not have the same
advantage and therefore, there is no record of which LR are cultivated in existing
PAs.
It is obvious from the growing threats that CWR face globally, coupled with the
increased requirement for their genetic diversity in attempting to counter climate
change, that CWR genetic diversity is currently far from secure and more
concerted in situ and ex situ conservation action must be a priority. The Global
Crop Diversity Trust and partners have recently launched a ten year project to
ensure priority CWR are conserved ex situ; however, in situ conservation remains
the preferred option because of the need to retain dynamic evolutionary
interactions, the sheer number of CWR involved, and the need to conserve their
full range of genetic diversity. Therefore, there is a need for complementary in situ
action through the establishment of a Global Network of CWR Genetic Reserves to
ensure that the full range of CWR genetic diversity of the highest priority species
for food security is conserved. The Commission has already published a
background study for the establishment of a Global Network of CWR Genetic
Reserves (Maxted and Kell, 2009)―now the recommendations from this study need
to be translated into concrete actions.
Although there are many more LR accessions conserved ex situ, it is unlikely that
they reflect the true levels of LR diversity maintain by farmers, householder or
other maintainers globally for all crops. There is a need for a thorough review of
global LR diversity, together with concerted in situ and ex situ conservation action
to ensure the diversity is secured and available to the user community. National
LR reviews in Europe have found LR are often but not exclusively maintained in
agriculturally marginal areas and this relationship could be explored further,
particularly within the Vavilov Centres to help identify globally important sites to
form part of a Global Network of LR On-farm Conservation Sites.
The point has been stressed throughout the book that effective CWR and LR
conservation requires a coordinated effort at national, regional and global levels,
as well as between those engaged in their conservation and use. Although the
resource book is focused at the national level, the integration of national on-farm
and in situ conservation with the local and international level action is key to
maximising conservation efficiency. So on-farm sites and genetic reserves will be
situated within a local community and should be grounded within the local
community to integrate agrobiodiversity conservation with local benefit and so
engender support for the conservation. While individual on-farm sites and
genetic reserves via national networks may also contribute to global networks as
global conservation action must be implemented in nations and at individual
location. As pointed out above global and local conservation action is most
commonly implemented via national agencies, so there is need to establish good
inter-geographic level linkage.
Key recommendation 3: The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture considers the requirement for the establishment evidence base for
CWR and LR conservation.
In the broader biodiversity conservation community there is now an acceptance of
the need to base conservation action on evidence based knowledge, rather than
anecdotal advise or a continuation of traditional practices that may inhibits the
development of scientific management and effective project planning. The quality
of conservation action often reflects the ratio between the information that the
conservationist has at hand compared to the sum total of relevant information that
is potentially available; the more background information (evidence) the better
the decision. The evidence-based framework aims to inform decision makers
about the likely outcome of alternative conservation actions. The features of such
an evidence based system would be (a) systematic reviews and evaluation, (b)
199
FAO (2001)
437 PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT
FOOD CROPS
Crop Genus Observations
Banana /
Musa Except Musa textilis
Plantain
Rice Oryza
Pearl Millet Pennisetum
Beans Phaseolus Except Phaseolus polyanthus
Pea Pisum
Rye Secale
Section tuberosa included, except Solanum
Potato Solanum
phureja
Eggplant Solanum Section melongena included
Sorghum Sorghum
Triticale Triticosecale
Wheat Triticum et al. Including Agropyron, Elymus, and Secale
Faba Bean /
Vicia
Vetch
Cowpea et al. Vigna
Excluding Zea perennis, Zea diploperennis,
Maize Zea
and Zea luxurians
FORAGE CROPS
Genera Species
LEGUME FORAGES
Astragalus chinensis, cicer, arenarius
Canavalia ensiformis
Coronilla varia
Hedysarum coronarium
Lathyrus cicera, ciliolatus, hirsutus, ochrus, odoratus, sativus
Lespedeza cuneata, striata, stipulacea
Lotus corniculatus, subbiflorus, uliginosus
Lupinus albus, angustifolius, luteus
Medicago arborea, falcata, sativa, scutellata, rigidula, truncatula
Melilotus albus, officinalis
200
Groombridge and Jenkins (2002)
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 440
Annex 3. Consolidated list major and minor crop genera
Approx Sp ITPGRFA (FAO Groombridge and
Genus
No. 2001) Jenkins (2002)
Aegilops 23 X
Agropyron 15 X
Allium 750 X
Ananas 1 X
Arachis 69 X
Armoracia 6 X
Artocarpus 45 X
Asparagus 120 X
Avena 25 X X
Barbarea 22 X
Bertholletia 1 X
Beta 13 X X
Brassica 40 X X
Cajanus 34 X X
Camellia 119 X X
Capsicum 10 X
Carica 1 X
Carthamnus 55 X
Chenopodium 100 X
Cicer 44 X X
Citrullus 4 X
Citrus 25 X X
Cocos 1 X X
Coffea 100 X
Colocasia 7 X X
Corylus 18 X
Crambe 35 X
Cucumis 52 X
201
Castañeda Álvarez et al. (2011)
PGRFA NATIONAL CONSERVATION TOOLKIT 445
specimens
botrecat Sight record or vouchered record Voucher
Figure 3. Global priority genetic reserve locations for CWR of 12 food crops ........................................... 29
Figure 5. Basic scheme of how to undertake a regional Red List assessment. .......................................... 167
Figure 6. CWR diversity in situ and ex situ gap analysis methodology ........................................................178
Figure 7. CWR ex situ gap analysis methodology at ecogeographic level ................................................. 180
Figure 10. Development of a monitoring plan at the individual CWR level ...............................................231
Figure 12. Model for the development of a National management plan for CWR conservation ....... 274
Figure 13 Overview of the creating a national (or regional) checklist of LR ............................................. 279
Figure 15. Process of establishing conservation priorities from a national inventory of LR .............. 326
Figure 16. Distribution of Shetland cabbage landrace maintainers on the Shetland Islands ............ 330
Figure 19. Landrace diversity in situ and ex situ gap analysis methodology .............................................351
Figure 20. Crops gap analysis methodology at ecogeographic level ........................................................... 353
Figure 26. English and Welsh vegetable LR inventory database structure ................................................ 429
Figure 27. English and Welsh vegetable LR inventory LR data entry module .......................................... 429
Box 10. Options for in situ and on-farm conservation of PGRFA .............................................................................. 30
Box 12. Using a regional CWR inventory to extract a national CWR checklist ................................................. 75
Box 13. Using a regional botanical checklist to extract a regional CWR checklist .......................................... 75
Box 14. Using botanical checklist and agricultural statistics to create a CWR inventory ............................ 76
Box 15. Creating a national plant checklist using web-based resources ............................................................... 77
Box 19. Systems and methods for setting species priorities ........................................................................................ 92
Box 21. Systems and methods for setting species priorities ........................................................................................99
Box 23. Establishing conservation priorities for the CWR of India ....................................................................... 101
Box 24. Establishing conservation priorities for the CWR of Spain ...................................................................... 102
Box 25. Allele types according to their distribution in populations ...................................................................... 115
Box 26. Genetic diversity in relation to life history traits in plant species ......................................................... 118
Box 27. Genetic diversity of Dianthus cintranus subsp. barbatus in Portugal ................................................. 126
Box 28. Islands as refugia of Trifolium repens genetic diversity ............................................................................. 126
Box 31. Types of data to include in the ecogeographic database ............................................................................ 141
Box 32. Factors to take into consideration when using ex situ data ...................................................................... 144
Box 34. Strategies for the development of core collections based on ecogeographic data ........................ 145
Box 35. Summary of data types collated to undertake CWR red list assessments ......................................... 157
Box 36. Geographic range measurements used in IUCN Red List Criterion B ................................................ 159
Box 39. IUCN Red Listing linked to climate change susceptibility .......................................................................166
Box 40. Red List Assessment of Aegilops spp. in Armenia ........................................................................................ 167
Box 46. Site selection for the conservation of CWR and LR in Vietnam ............................................................ 202
Box 47. Establishment of CWR genetic reserves for cereals, forages and fruit trees .................................... 211
Box 50. Development a network of community nature reserves in Benin .......................................................... 213
Box 51. Establishment of a genetic reserve for Beta patula in Madeira ............................................................... 213
Box 54. Lathyrus belinensis: a CWR discovered and almost lost ............................................................................223
Box 56. Assessment and monitoring of agrobiodiversity and its threats in the Fertile Crescent
Biodiversity .......................................................................................................................................................................................238
Box 57. Can farmers benefit directly from CWR diversity? .......................................................................................245
Box 58. Some examples of CWR use in breeding ............................................................................................................245
Box 65. Checklist of Sorghum LR in South and Central Tigray region (Ethiopia) ........................................ 284
Box 66. Types of data to include in a national inventory of landraces ................................................................ 295
Box 70. Rice landraces in three rice agro-ecozones in Nepal ................................................................................... 302
Box 72. Conservation and sustainable use of dryland agrobiodiversity ............................................................. 303
Box 73. Use of agroecological and characterization data to establish a core collection ............................. 304
Box 75. Threat assessment of agricultural crops and landraces in Nepal........................................................... 319
Box 77. Threat assessment of landraces in the Lazio region (Italy) ....................................................................... 319
Box 81. Bolivian and Peruvian “Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)” Study ........................................... 331
Box 82. Priority Rice Landraces in Ban Khoang, Sa Pa District (Vietnam) ........................................................332
Box 83. Allele types according to their distribution in populations ...................................................................... 337
Box 84. Genetic diversity of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and P. coccineus landraces in Italy ............................... 341
Box 85. Genetic diversity of rice accessions from India .............................................................................................. 341
Box 88. Predictive association between traits and ecogeographic data ..............................................................355
Box 89. Global ex situ gap analysis for sweet potato.................................................................................................... 356
Box 90. Methodology for identifying sites for on-farm conservation activities ..............................................367
Box 91. Site selection for CWR and LR conservation in Vietnam .......................................................................... 368
Box 93. Maize landraces in Portugal – multi-LR on-farm example ........................................................................ 369
Box 94. Methods of supporting conservation and use of traditional crop varieties ..................................... 388
Box 96. Strategies for sustainable conservation and use of legumes in Ghana .............................................. 390
Box 97. Gender: increasing access, participation and decision-making in Vietnam ..................................... 391
Box 99. Centre for Indian Knowledge Systems (CIKS) community seed bank............................................... 404
Box 100. Community seed banks in the Taraka District, Kenya ............................................................................. 405
Box 103. Genetic erosion of rice landrace diversity in South and Southeast Asia .......................................... 414