Development of national crop wild relative conservation strategies in European countries

被引:0
|
作者
Juozas Labokas
Nigel Maxted
Shelagh Kell
Joana Magos Brehm
José Maria Iriondo
机构
[1] Institute of Botany,School of Biosciences
[2] Nature Research Centre,Depto. Biología, Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica
[3] University of Birmingham,undefined
[4] Universidad Rey Juan Carlos,undefined
来源
关键词
Conservation planning; Crop wild relatives; Prioritisation criteria and methods; Genetic reserves; Protected areas; Conservation actions;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
To generate European-wide information to contribute to the improvement of national and regional crop wild relative (CWR) conservation planning and the development of effective CWR conservation strategies, a questionnaire was sent to the members of the Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves Working Group of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) to collate information on progress in developing and implementing national CWR conservation strategies and action plans. Responses from 30 countries were analysed and literature sources were consulted to fill some information gaps. Results showed that 13 countries were in the preparation stage of their national strategies, i.e. having no drafts prepared yet, 14 in higher stages (from the first draft prepared to the published and approved ones), and three have not yet started the planning process. Twelve countries included all categories of species autochthony (i.e., native, archaeophyte and neophyte) in their priority CWR lists. Wild relatives of human and animal food crops were selected as the highest priorities by 23 and 22 countries, respectively. Relative level of threat was identified as the most important prioritization criterion by 23 countries. Italy reported the highest number of CWR in its national checklist (10,779 taxa) and priority list (1118 taxa), whereas Ireland reported the lowest number of CWR in its checklist (171 taxa) and Portugal reported the lowest number in its priority list (20 taxa). Regarding the percentages of prioritized CWR, the strictest approach was applied in Portugal—only 20 out of 2262 CWR taxa, or < 1%, were selected as priorities for conservation action, whereas in Spain 578 out of 929 CWR taxa, or about 62% were prioritized. Eleven countries have proposed the establishment of genetic reserves, from one per country (Israel) to an extended network (Germany and the Netherlands). Only the UK had a formally established genetic reserve. The highest number of priority CWR taxa that occur in existing protected areas was reported by Spain—472 species, or 82% of the national priority list, whereas the lowest number—14 species, or 70% of the national priority list—in Portugal. Israel reported the highest number of priority CWR taxa (319 or 98%) conserved in gene banks. Among the limitations in the development of national CWR strategies highlighted by countries, was the lack of an EU agency responsible for genetic resources. The development of CWR conservation strategies is mostly within the domains of agriculture (13 countries) and environment (12 countries), although both domains are involved in eight countries. The most successful results in the development and implementation of CWR conservations strategies are achieved in the countries where multiple stakeholders, including ministries, research institutions, NGOs, local communities, protected area authorities and national PGR committees are involved. Some discussion and conclusions regarding further developments are provided.
引用
收藏
页码:1385 / 1403
页数:18
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Development of national crop wild relative conservation strategies in European countries
    Labokas, Juozas
    Maxted, Nigel
    Kell, Shelagh
    Brehm, Joana Magos
    Maria Iriondo, Jose
    [J]. GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION, 2018, 65 (05) : 1385 - 1403
  • [2] Development of a national crop wild relative conservation strategy for Cyprus
    Phillips, Jade
    Kyratzis, Angelos
    Christoudoulou, Charalambos
    Kell, Shelagh
    Maxted, Nigel
    [J]. GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION, 2014, 61 (04) : 817 - 827
  • [3] Development of a national crop wild relative conservation strategy for Cyprus
    Jade Phillips
    Angelos Kyratzis
    Charalambos Christoudoulou
    Shelagh Kell
    Nigel Maxted
    [J]. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 2014, 61 : 817 - 827
  • [4] Climate change and national crop wild relative conservation planning
    Phillips, Jade
    Brehm, Joana Magos
    van Oort, Bob
    Asdal, Asmund
    Rasmussen, Morten
    Maxted, Nigel
    [J]. AMBIO, 2017, 46 (06) : 630 - 643
  • [5] Climate change and national crop wild relative conservation planning
    Jade Phillips
    Joana Magos Brehm
    Bob van Oort
    Åsmund Asdal
    Morten Rasmussen
    Nigel Maxted
    [J]. Ambio, 2017, 46 : 630 - 643
  • [6] Genetic Reserve Conservation of European Crop Wild Relative and Landrace Diversity
    Frese, L.
    Bjorn, G. K.
    Branca, F.
    Ford-Lloyd, B. V.
    Germeier, C. U.
    Iriondo, J. M.
    Katsiotis, A.
    Kell, S. P.
    Maxted, N.
    Negri, V.
    Pinheiro de Carvalho, M. A. A.
    [J]. AGROBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION: SECURING THE DIVERSITY OF CROP WILD RELATIVES AND LANDRACES, 2012, : 1 - 6
  • [7] Crop wild relative conservation: Wild yams are not that wild
    Scarcelli, Nora
    Chair, Hana
    Causse, Sandrine
    Vesta, Raphael
    Couvreur, Thomas L. P.
    Vigouroux, Yves
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2017, 210 : 325 - 333
  • [8] New tools for crop wild relative conservation planning
    Brehm, J. Magos
    Kell, S.
    Thormann, I
    Gaisberger, H.
    Dulloo, M. E.
    Maxted, N.
    [J]. PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES-CHARACTERIZATION AND UTILIZATION, 2019, 17 (02): : 208 - 212
  • [9] Toward the Systematic Conservation of Global Crop Wild Relative Diversity
    Maxted, Nigel
    Kell, Shelagh
    Ford-Lloyd, Brian
    Dulloo, Ehsan
    Toledo, Alvaro
    [J]. CROP SCIENCE, 2012, 52 (02) : 774 - 785
  • [10] The Potential of Payment for Ecosystem Services for Crop Wild Relative Conservation
    Tyack, Nicholas
    Dempewolf, Hannes
    Khoury, Colin K.
    [J]. PLANTS-BASEL, 2020, 9 (10): : 1 - 14