1
Are European threatened species adequately preserved in ex situ institutions? Limitations of the IUCN Red List as a guideline for ex situ plant conservation and a proposal for an integrated strategy in assessing the conservation importance and value of a species in ex situ plant collections.
Panagiotis Spiliotis, 20 August 2015
Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the MSc in Biodiversity and Taxonomy of plants.
2
Table of contents
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction
Methodology and Results
The International Plant Red List
The European Vascular Plant Red List
Cambridge University Botanic Gardens IUCN living collection
Discussion
Relative ex situ conservation value Quantitative and qualitative importance of the major plant families of the International Red List European IUCN Red List, which families are of highest taxonomical conservation value?
The species that hold the highest relative ex situ conservation value on the European Red List Conclusion and final remarks
References
Appendix
3
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my project supervisor Dr. Sam Brockington for his help and time in completing this thesis, the Cambridge University Botanic Gardens administration and horticultural staff for their incredible contribution in helping locate the plants that were needed and my course coordinator Dr. Louis Ronse de Craene for his time and patience. Finally, I would like to thank the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh for funding my stay in Cambridge over the summer.
4
Abstract
It is widely accepted that we’re currently going through a phase of higher than normal species loss, plants being no exception. All work being performed to minimise the rate of extinction in plants can be divided into two categories, in-situ and ex situ conservation. While priority has been placed on in-situ, ex situ conservation of threatened species is a crucial component in international plant conservation. The IUCN is the de-facto classification of organisms based on their potential for extinction, but it can be problematic when trying to prioritise species importance in ex situ. A better method of categorising species is required to enable a more efficient practise in ex situ and to maximise the impact that institutions can have on global plant conservation. This project aims at evaluating the flaws of solely using the IUCN Red List when selecting plants for living collections, while offering an alternative method of categorising plants, one which uses the IUCN Red List, taxonomic information and the quantity of locations that a threatened species is currently present in.
5
Introduction
It is well understood that we are currently going through a phase of high rate of extinction of species, a trend that has been caused primarily by human activities. The CBD recognises 5 main anthropogenic causes for which include climate change, habitat loss, overexploitation, alien species and pollution (CBD, 2002a). The on-going loss of global plant diversity will have a much greater detrimental effect and impact on humanity than any other group of organisms. It is of great necessity that an effective and efficient global strategy is in place to deal with this threat and decades of research has been devoted to it. While there is a lot of effort placed in establishing procedures and frameworks for in-situ conservation work, much work still has to be done in maximising the efficiency of our global ex situ conservation institutions. As it stands, there is currently no international and unified management strategy for the conservation of threatened plants among ex situ living collections (Cibrian-Jaramillo et al, 2013).
Over the past 30 years, there has been a shift of prioritisation of direct in-situ conservation of plant species, with ex situ collections being used primarily as a method of preservation of biological diversity and as a complimentary effort to in-situ work (Havens et al, 2006; Oldfield, 2009; Cochrane et al, 2007). Priority has been placed on small and localised efforts, trying to preserve threatened species in their natural range and distribution. There is no guarantee though those in-situ efforts will be enough to preserve, in the long term, the species in question.
These are cases that highlight the necessity of good ex situ work, to insure the survival of the species in question and to facilitate future re-introductions by cultivating genetically viable source material. (Barrett and Koch, 1991). Species loss is a global problem and while it might be favourable in employing a more localised strategy in in-situ work, because of the nature of ex situ conservation itself (botanic gardens, seed banks, arboreta etc.) a more open and international approach might be better suited. International cooperation is of the utmost importance, and thanks to the current technological abilities and ease of exchange of 6 information, ex situ institutions can rise to become extremely important contributors, by employing a more synergetic and open strategy in working with their living collections (Bilz et al, 2011). By focusing on creating a much more effective and efficient international network, one that will focus on inter institutional exchange of information and plant material, much can be accomplished, without great increase of cost.
Irrelevant of the type of conservation strategy employed, good information is crucial in making the necessary decisions and to maximise the likelihood of a species survival. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants (Red List), is a series of documents produced by the Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union (IUCN; http://www.iucn.org), and it’s an effort in creating a global list of threatened species and to classify these based on their risk of going extinct. The categories range from extinct (EX), extinct in the wild (EW) critically endangered (CR), endangered (EN), vulnerable (VU), near threatened (NT), least concern (LC), data deficient (DD) and not evaluated (NE). Its aim is to highlight species based on their current threat and to facilitate their conservation by ‘concentrating minds on true priority’ (Collar 1996) (IUCN, 2011). It is currently one of the most important documents when dealing with the conservation of our biodiversity. It is the baseline reference in decision making policies in conservation.
For some groups of organisms the Red List has done a remarkable job in assessing the diversity involved (i.e. nearly all vertebrates have been assessed for the Red List). For plants though, some have estimated that around 50% of all current plant species are to be threatened with extinction (Bramwell, 2003; Pitman & Jorgensen, 2002), while the IUCN plant Red List only consists of approx. 3.2% of global plant diversity (Schatz, 2009). Only 2 taxa have been nearly completely assessed, conifers and cycads. (Schatz, 2009).
The IUCN Red List is a very effective method of assessing the threat of extinction of a species, classifying all taxa on a scale of priority, based on their probability of them to go extinct. In that aspect, it’s a crucial tool for ex situ institutions, knowing which taxa are threatened will facilitate efforts in trying to reduce the loss of plant diversity. But it does not 7 indicate or hint at the rarity of the species in relation to its abundance, thus importance, in ex situ conservation.
This specific problem, the lack of synergy between the IUCN Red List and the current plant diversity in living collections is the core premise of this thesis. How can ex situ institutions (in this case botanic gardens and arboreta) better organise their collections to maximise their contribution and value?
I state, and this is the underlying assumption in this work, that the diversity of all species that are currently known to be threatened by extinction (in this case the CR, EN and VU of the Red List), has to be proportionally represented in living collections, for ex situ conservation to fulfil its role as conservation agents. The long term aim should be a full representation of all threatened species, in multiple collections and at a healthy size to minimise the threat of genetic erosion.
This raises a very important question, which is the main focus of this project, is how to quantitatively figure out which taxa are currently over or under represented in living collections, from a taxonomic and conservation standpoint. To highlight this issue, I shall use the following hypothetical example. If species A is currently classified as Critically Endangered (CE) and it’s present in 100 ex situ institutions globally (i.e. Wollemia nobillis, no. of locations = 107), is this species a higher ex situ conservation priority that an Endangered (E) or Vulnerable (Vu) species that is only present in one or no living collections?
Based on the Red List, the answer would be yes, the CR species is more threatened in-situ, and thus its preservation is more important. This is an important short falling of the Red List in respect to ex situ work. It is possible, even probable, that the latter species requires more urgent attention, primarily because its presence in ex situ if so scarce or often non-existing. If the in-situ work fails, and the species goes extinct in the wild, if it’s absent in ex situ, or present in very low numbers, it might be permanently lost. 8
So if the Red List is not the ideal classification of priority of species in ex situ, how does one quantify the urgency or importance of one taxon over another? What are the criteria that must be used to assess this? Which are the families that currently require more work? Would shifting the focus to preserving under represented taxa ex situ to be a more effective strategy in minimising the amount of species going extinct? These are the issues that I have tried to tackle in this project. While a unified strategy for all plants might not be the ideal solution (once taken in account different plant life histories, national goals, variation of plant diversity by region, the different aims and goals of each ex situ institution), it might be an useful way in better organising and curating already existed plant collections, with the aim of increasing the conservation impact of an institution (Cibrian-Jaramillo et al, 2013).
Some groups will always be more interesting for a botanic garden (aesthetics, novelty, human use, horticultural importance, popularity) and botanic gardens are not just a mechanism for plant conservation. It is crucial to have an appreciation of which taxa are currently over- represented and under- represented, on the Red List and in ex situ living collections. If a botanic garden is allocating most of its resources in growing species from over represented taxa (threatened or not), its impact on global plant conservation is reduced. By balancing out all the threatened taxa internationally between botanic gardens, you would achieve a much higher impact than by not doing so.
Not all families are of the same size. They can range from very large families with over 20.000 species (i.e. Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Orchidaceae etc.) to very small monotypic families like Cephalotaceae. The larger the family, the more species one would expect to find on the Red List (which is also the case as the 30 largest families out of the 285 that exist on the Red List take up approx. 62% of the Red List itself). This figure can also be exacerbated by selective scientific bias as well, larger families are often scientifically ‘’more interesting’’ for research, with a disproportional amount of taxonomic specialists and available funding, increasing the rate of their species being subjected to Red List assessments. This would give an unfair weight to the family in question (in relation to the rest of families on the Red List). The opposite might also be the case, very small ‘’novel’’ families (i.e. Cephalotaceae), might 9 receive a proportionally large amount of attention. But, with such a small amount of the total plant diversity having been assessed on the Red List, it’s very hard to make meaningful conclusions.
This project focus has been on assessing the current state of the Red List in relation to its use and value to ex situ plant conservation. I will be presenting a new notion that has not, to my knowledge, been described in the literature, the notion of the relative ex situ conservation value of a species. Previous work has been done on assessing the representation of plant families in the Red List, using phylogenetic diversity to describe the evolutionary differences between plants and other organisms (Faith et al, 2004; Mooers et al, 2005; Schatz, 2009), but none that I could fine had integrated these concepts with the abundance of species in existing plant collections. This work is an effort in trying to offer an alternative in evaluating plant species in context of their relative conservation value (by categorising and ranking species based on a species taxonomy, size of family, the amount of threatened species and number of ex situ sites that currently have the species) and this notion, wherever possible, will be applied at three different levels:
The complete IUCN plant Red List The European Plant Red List The IUCN Red List collection at the University of Cambridge Botanic Garden.
By evaluating the Red List at two different levels and creating a baseline, the data produced will be used to evaluate the Cambridge collection, allowing the opportunity to assess the conservation value of their collection, pinpointing taxonomic groups/species that they are strong/ weak in and offer, based on these criteria’s, curatorial advice on how to maximise their impact as an institution and as a plant conservation agent.
By evaluating plant collections by the usage of a relative ex situ conservation value, the aim is to give curators a supplementary tool that will aid them in recognising taxa of higher importance and facilitate them in guaranteeing the correct preservation of their Red List collections.
10
METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS:
IUCN Red List
The first course of action was to assess the global plant Red List. While this information might not be necessary in the evaluating the European threatened species, which is the aim of this project, it does offer a reference point to the major families and allows some insight into some of the most threatened families.
Before looking at individual species at an ex situ level using the BGCI PlantSearch database (BGCI, 2015), a baseline reference was required for evaluating the value of a species, based on the taxonomic diversity of its family and the amount of species of that family on the Red List. By doing so, it allows the opportunity to quantify and visualise families that are over or under represented on the Red List itself. This can be a useful way of locating gaps in our current ex situ work, as by having a greater understanding of which families are currently more threatened, and those that are underrepresented in our collections, it can be a useful indication of where more works need to be done in the near future and which families urgently need more attention now.
The first task was to recreate the IUCN Red List, as to my knowledge there is no available online source of the whole Red List. The CR, EN and VU lists were downloaded from the IUCN website and merged into one dataset. In the analysis of the International Red List, CR, EN and VU were all considered as threatened species and their distinction was not taken into consideration. The NT and LC where not included in the analyses performed in this thesis, as the focus point of this project was to evaluate the threatened species of the Red List, and not necessarily the whole list itself.
After all 10590 species were merged into one dataset; they had to be all reclassified with the APG III (Stevens, 2001 onwards), as the IUCN itself is currently using an outdated form of plant classification, the Cronquist system (1981). This was necessary, as the best method of getting reliable up-to-date taxonomic information of the sizes of the groups require the usage of the APG III taxonomy. This was performed manually, by cross referring the genera of the Red List with the Plant List Ver. 1.1 (Plant List, 2015). Some of the families had to be removed, as their current classification is of dubious nature, with very little available information. Once reclassified, the Catalogue of Life (COL; Roskov et al, 2015) database was used to add the current sizes of the families involved. While the Plant List was also a 11 viable source of information, and both databases gave relatively similar results, COL was preferred for the numerical data of each family. It must be stated that both the PlantList and COL often came up with different numbers for each family. For some families the differences was low (1-10 species) and for other the difference was in the 1000s. Thus the numerical data used in this project are not definitely correct, but are considered as approximations of the real number, based on the varying numbers that can be found on different catalogues. This further emphasizes the need of good taxonomic classification, something that has even been highlighted in the GSPC (target two; Callmander et al, 2005). The whole IUCN Red List, down to the rank of family, with the calculations performed and ranked based on amount of threatened species can be found in the appendix.
From the International IUCN Red List, two lists were produced that were used in this project. The first consists of the top 30 families with the highest amount of assessed threatened species, the second one with the top 30 families with the highest percentage of threatened species in relation to their size.
12
2.86
1.77
0.87
3.07
5.51
1.89
5.02
3.82
9.77
4.39
6.45
2.51
3.33
7.91
6.10
4.80
9.81
1.11
5.95
2.91
1.41
3.63
13.48
63.89
20.28
29.96
18.74
12.53
67.78
27.39
% offamily% threatened
0.91
0.92
0.95
0.96
0.99
1.00
1.01
1.10
1.19
1.30
1.33
1.38
1.39
1.44
1.45
1.51
1.67
1.82
1.89
2.25
2.54
2.73
2.90
3.03
3.46
3.60
3.73
3.92
4.73
7.09
% of IUCN RedList ofIUCN %
868
216
725
514
540
3353
5489
3324
1907
5609
2131
3302
1443
3327
2373
6374
5320
2440
3277
1270
5603
2947
2561
6407
1515
11543
27753
13581
35629
20672
Sizeoffamily, inofno.species
96
97
101
102
105
106
107
117
126
138
141
146
147
153
154
160
177
193
200
238
269
289
307
321
366
381
395
415
501
751
RedListed species
ALISMATALES
LAMIALES
POALES
PIPERALES
SAPINDALES
ROSALES
SAPINDALES
MALPGHIALES
LAMIALES
CYCADALES
APIALES
POALES
SAPINDALES
ASTERALES
MAGNOLIALES
GENTIANALES
MALVALES
MAGNOLIALES
LAURALES
ERICALES
MYRTALES
MYRTALES
ASPARAGALES
ARECALES
MALVALES
MALPIGHIALES
GENTIANALES
CARYOPHYLLALES
ASTERALES
FABALES
Order
ARACEAE
ACANTHACEAE
POACEAE
PIPERACEAE
SAPINDACEAE
ROSACEAE
RUTACEAE
CLUSIACEAE
GESNERIACEAE
ZAMIACEAE
ARALIACEAE
BROMELIACEAE
MELIACEAE
CAMPANULACEAE
MYRISTICACEAE
APOCYNACEAE
MALVACEAE
ANNONACEAE
LAURACEAE
SAPOTACEAE
MYRTACEAE
MELASTOMATACEAE
ORCHIDACEAE
ARECACEAE
DIPTEROCARPACEAE
EUPHORBIACEAE
RUBIACEAE
CACTACEAE
ASTERACEAE FABACEAE FamilyNames Table 1. The 30 families with the highest amount of threatened species, with data indicating the amount of species that are threatened, the size of the family, the percentage of the family’s species on the Red List and the percentage of the Red List that the family takes up. 13
26.74
27.33
27.39
27.71
28.33
28.57
28.80
29.96
31.58
33.33
34.68
35.14
43.06
49.57
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
51.61
63.89
64.10
67.78
75.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
% offamily% threatened
0.73
0.77
3.92
0.43
0.16
0.06
0.52
1.45
0.06
0.01
0.81
0.12
0.59
0.54
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.15
1.30
0.24
3.46
0.06
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
% of IUCN RedList ofIUCN %
3
2
2
2
4
8
8
1
1
1
1
2
2
60
21
19
37
31
39
288
300
166
191
514
248
144
115
216
540
1515
Sizeoffamily, inofno.species
6
6
1
1
1
1
2
4
6
1
1
1
1
2
2
77
82
46
17
55
86
13
62
57
16
25
415
154
138
366
RedListed species
ERICALES
ERICALES
CARYOPHYLLALES
PINALES
OXALIDALES
CANELLALES
PINALES
MAGNOLIALES
ALISMATALES
OXALIDALES
MAGNOLIALES
CURCUBITALES
CARYOPHYLLALES
CYCADALES
TAKAKIALES
MAGNOLIALES
BRASSICALES
MARCHANTIALES
APIALES
CUPRESSALES
CYCADALES
PINALES
MALVALES
CARYOPHYLLALES
GINKGOALES
FAGALES
LAURALES
OXALIDALES
SAXIFRAGALES
ROSALES
Order
THEACEAE
LECYTHIDACEAE
CACTACEAE
CUPRESSACEAE
BRUNELLIACEAE
CANELLACEAE
PODOCARPACEAE
MYRISTICACEAE
ZOSTERACEAE
HUACEAE
MAGNOLIACEAE
ANISOPHYLLEACEAE
NEPENTHACEAE
CYCADACEAE
TAKAKIACEAE
DEGENERIACEAE
AKANIACEAE
EXORMOTHECACEAE
TORRICELLIACEAE
TAXACEAE
ZAMIACEAE
ARAUCARIACEAE
DIPTEROCARPACEAE
ASTEROPEIACEAE
GINKGOACEAE
TICODENDRACEAE
GOMORTEGACEAE
CEPHALOTACEAE
PERIDISCACEAE DIRACHMACEAE FamilyNames Table 2. The 30 families with the highest % of threatened species, with data indicating the amount of species that are threatened, the size of the family, the percentage of the family’s species on the Red List and the percentage of the Red List that the family takes up.
14
The European Vascular Plant Red List
The initial aim of this project was to assess the ex situ representation of all Red Listed families. Unfortunately, I was unable to obtain the BGCI numbers for every single assessed species of the Red List. I focused on a smaller IUCN publication, the European Vascular Plant Red List and manually entered into the BGCI database the name of every species that is currently threatened (BGCI, 2015). By doing so, a dataset was created with all known European Red Listed plants and the number of botanical institutions that currently have them in their collection. The exact location and number of individual plants in each collection was not obtainable from the BGCI database, which if unfortunate, as it is impossible to say where in the world these plants are located. Target 8 of the GSPC states that 75% off all threatened taxa should be found in ex situ, preferably in the country of origin and with 10% at least up to standards for re-introduction. Does Europe hold up this goal to with its own threatened species?
As mentioned previously, only the CR, EN and VU taxa were used in the analysis, as the emphasis of this project is on the current state of European threatened taxa and their presence in ex situ institutions. Before performing the bulk of the analysis, a preliminary analysis was conducted, in relation to the amount of species, the amount of taxa and to examine how many species have been assessed under the three different Red List groups.
Out of the 1826 species on the European Red List, the DD, EW, EN, NA and LC where removed and 465 species remained (graph 1). 15
Status of the threatened species on the European Red List 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CR EN VU
Graph 1. The amount of species belonging to each IUCN group. A total of 124 species have been assigned the status of CR (27%), 177 EN (38%) and 164 VU (35%). On the y axis the no. of species, while the x axis the IUCN Red List status.
The BGCI values of each species where then added. It was found that out of the 465 species currently threatened in Europe, 328 of them are currently located in at least one collection (71%). As it stands, the Target 8 of the GSPC has been attained and surpassed for European threatened species.
16
BGCI values for all threatened European species 160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 21+
Graph 2. All 465 threatened species based on the amount of ex situ locations they are currently located in. All information in relation to the no. of locations was obtained using the BGCI PlantSearch. On the y axis is the no. of species and the x axis their no. of locations.
A more concise method was needed to be able to evaluate the European Red list in a more appropriate manner. The different BGCI no. of location values were placed into 6 groups, with each being categorised based on the necessity that the species needed to be further worked on ex situ. While there is good literature existing on the amount of individuals of a species to be located at a site in ex situ to guarantee a long-term genetically viable population, to my knowledge no such work has been done in establishing the ideal amount of living collections a species must be located in to ensure the highest survival rate. The assumption that was used in this thesis was that the higher the amount of ex situ sites a species if found, the higher the probability of the species long term survival. Thus, these groupings were arbitrarily assigned, based on what seemed logical. These are though debatable and by no means ideal.
Six categories were assigned each given a letter. A, B, C, D, E and F. Group A was assigned to species with no BGCI value (none-existing in collections) and was considered as species requiring urgent introduction into living collections, B species between present in 1 to 4 ex situ institutions and were considered to be too low and in critical need of further introduction into other living collections, C species present in 5 to 9 and was considered as adequate, D 10 17 to 19 which was assigned as good, E 20+ which was very good and then finally F 50+ which was extremely good.
BGCI Value Grouping Condition Urgent 0 A attention
1-4 B Too low 5-9 C Sufficient
10-19 D High 20+ E Very good
50+ F extremely good Table 3.
After reclassifying all the species based on these groupings, this is how the data looked.
European Red List species divided into their BGCI value group 250
200
150
100
50
0 A B C D E F
Graph 3. All 465 species classified into one of the six groups (A, B, C, D, E and F). The y axis is the no. of species, the x axis is the groupings. 137 species was classified into group A (29.39%), 219 in group B (46.9%), 64 in C (13.73%), 23 in D (4.93%), 16 in E (3.43) and 7 in group F (1.5%).
A total of 137 species from the European Red list (29.46% of the Red List) are currently placed in group A and are completely absent in living collections while 219 species (47.09%) were placed in group B, meaning that they are present in collections, but not in enough numbers. Based on this simplistic method of categorisation of BGCI groupings, 356 species 18
(76.55%) of all species on the European Red List are deemed to require more attention from ex situ institutions.
The species in groups A and B will be the focus of the rest of the analysis. To perform efficiently at an international level, it is not necessary to raise the level of accessions of all species, but to increase the level of species that demand it the most.
The next task was to connect this with the International IUCN groupings and to try and see which of these species can be considered as the most threatened species in Europe, while examining their significance in relation to their taxonomy and the global IUCN Red List. I state that irrelevant of the species threatened IUCN status, depending on the current state of the family that it belongs in (as in if it belongs to quantitatively or qualitatively important families) and the amount of living collections it is present in (or not), it is justifiable to give it a higher priority status for ex situ work over a CR endangered species that is present in abundance in living collections. It must be noted that in a scenario where two species both have 0 accessions in living collections, the one with the most threatened IUCN status should be prioritised.
The species in group A and B were then split up into their respective Red List group, CR, EN and VU.
IUCN status of species in group A 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 CR EN VU Graph 4. A representation of the IUCN status of all species that were placed into group A. 38 species (28%) were CR, 53 species (39%) were EN and 46 species were VU (34%). 19
IUCN status of species in group B 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CR EN VU
Graph 5. A representation of the IUCN status of all species that were placed in group B. 60 species were CR (27%), 83 species were EN (38%) and 76 were VU (35%).
I was then interested in understanding the taxonomic representation of species included. The data for each group was looked at in four different manners. A general representation of all species families of the group irrelevant of the IUCN status and then for each Red List status individually. 20
All group A species 30
25
20
15
10
5
0
POACEAE
APIACEAE
FABACEAE
IRIDACEAE
CISTACEAE
RUBIACEAE
LAMIACEAE
SCROPHULA…
ISOETACEAE
ASCLEPIADA…
PLUMBAGIN…
CONVOLVUL…
POLYGONAC…
CALLITRICHA…
ASTERACEAE
RANUNCULA…
CRASSULACE… CYPERACEAE
CARYOPHYLL…
LENTIBULARI…
ILLECEBRACE…
AMARYLLIDA… CAPRIFOLIAC…
HYACINTHAC…
CAMPANULA…
AMARANTAC…
EUPHORBIAC…
PAPAVERACE…
BORAGINACE…
SANTALACEAE
PRIMULACEAE ORCHIDACEAE
BRASSICACEAE BRASSICACEAE APOCYNACEAE Graph 6. The abundance of each family in group A. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
All group A CR species 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Graph 7. The abundance of each family in group A. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
21
All group A EN species 14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Graph 8. The abundance of each family of EN species in group A. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
All group A VU species 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Graph 9. The abundance of each family of VU species in group A. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
22
All group B species 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
0
POACEAE
APIACEAE LILIACEAE
FABACEAE
ROSACEAE
RUTACEAE
VIOLACEAE
LAMIACEAE
JUNCACEAE
ASTERACEAE
LYTHRACEAE
MYRICACEAE
THYMELAEAC… ELATINACEAE
CONVOLVULA…
CALLITRICHAC…
GLOBULARIAC…
AMARANTACE…
PRIMULACEAE
HYDROCHARIT…
MARSILEACEAE
ALISMATACEAE
CRASSULACEAE
ILLECEBRACEAE BORAGINACEAE Graph 10. The abundance of each family in group B. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
All group B CR species 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Graph 11. The abundance of each family of CR species in group B. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
23
All group B EN species 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2
0
POACEAE
LILIACEAE
APIACEAE
FABACEAE
ROSACEAE
RUTACEAE
CISTACEAE
RUBIACEAE
LAMIACEAE
ISOETACEAE
ASTERACEAE
LYTHRACEAE
SOLANACEAE
GERANIACEAE
PAEONIACEAE
ORCHIDACEAE
BRASSICACEAE
MARSILEACEAE
ILLECEBRACEAE
BORAGINACEAE
ASPARAGACEAE
SAXIFRAGACEAE
HYACINTHACEAE
AMARANTACEAE
THYMELAEACEAE
RANUNCULACEAE
AMARYLLIDACEAE
PLANTAGINACEAE
PLUMBAGINACEAE
CARYOPHYLLACEAE SCROPHULARIACEAE
Graph 12. The abundance of each family of EN species in group A. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
24
Graph 13. The abundance of each family of VU species in group B. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x the name of the family.
25
Cambridge University Botanic Gardens IUCN living collection
The final part of this thesis was to use the similar analysis as the International and European Red List, but on a specific botanic garden and evaluate their IUCN collection in relation the abundance of these species in other botanic gardens. The University of Cambridge Botanic Gardens (CUBG) was used as the institution. Their Red listed species were uploaded directly to the BGCI database using the garden plant upload thingy and the results were automatically sent back.
The first task was to gain an appreciation of the taxonomic representation of their Red List collection. No botanic garden is able to have a representation of each plant family in their collection, so it is important to know initially what species and what families are currently located in their collection. From a curatorial aspect, it allows the institution in question to know where their taxonomic strengths are, and their weaknesses as well, especially in relation to potentially more important families (quantitative vs qualitative plant family value).
In similar manner to the previous two datasets, only the CR, EN and VU were used. Currently the CUBG contains 111 threatened species in their living collection. It was followed by an assessment of their taxonomic diversity.
Amount of CR, EN and VU species at the CUBG 60
50
40
30
20
10
0 CR EN VU
Graph 14. The amount species and their IUCN status of all threatened species at the CUBG. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x is the IUCN status. Out of these 111 species, 23 are currently classified as CR (20.72%), 36 are EN (32.43%) and 50 are VU (46.84%). 26
Amount of species and their family in the IUCN collection at the CUBG 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Graph 15. The amount species and their family that is found in the IUCN living collection at the CUBG. On the y axis is the no. of species and on the x axis the name of the family.
The 111 species were then classified based in relation to their BGCI values. Instead of directly using the values from the BGCI database, the species were grouped based on the same categories given to the species on the European Red List, A, B, C, D, E and F.
CUBG IUCN collection in BGCI groups 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 A B C D E F Graph 16. The 111 threatened species of the CUBG IUCN collection categorised into groups representing the amount of living collections that they belong in. On the y axis is the amount of species, on the x axis is their grouping based on the values given in table 3. 27
Discussion
Relative ex situ conservation value.
To be able to appreciate the ex situ value of a species, the IUCN Red List alone is not enough. While it’s a very good indicator of a species threat level in its natural range, without taking in consideration the taxonomic background and the current abundance of the species, or lack off, in ex situ, the Red List exerts a strong form of bias. To maximise the retention of endangered species, the aim should be placed in trying to achieve as much as possible, in the most cost-effective manner, by a ranking species based on how urgent they require conservation work.
Not all CR endangered species warrant the same attention from ex situ institutions. As stated previously, a CR species that is not represented in any living collection is more important than one present in 300 living collections. Similar, a species that belongs to an “important” family should be prioritised over a family with a very low threat. Example, Potamogetonaceae, a family in the Alismatales, currently consists of 166 species, with only one threatened (n=166, % of endangered = 0.6%). High caution must be used in assessing families of low values, as it is highly probable that these values are caused by a lack of Red Listing in these taxa. Families with very low % of threatened species might in reality need a lot of work, and should be prioritised in Red Listing efforts. But in this project, while recognising the flaw in doing so, these families are considered to currently be of lower conservation value.
Without the necessary funding, it will be impossible to maintain large populations of every single endangered species, across different institutions. From an ex situ perspective, I state that to maximise the work being done by institutions, emphasis must be placed on species that exhibit a higher relative ex situ conservation value. This method of classifying species based on their urgency for ex situ attention (their relative ex situ conservation value) takes in account the size of the family, the percentage of species of the family that is on the Red List 28
(it’s quantitative or qualitative worth) and most importantly the amount of ex situ institutions that currently have the species in their collection.
29
Quantitative and qualitative importance of the major plant families of the International Red List
The International Red List was classified into 3 groups. Each group is assigned into a ranking order, based on their perceived conservation importance and significance:
The 30 families with the highest amount of threatened species (quantitative importance) (Table 1) The 30 families with the highest percentage, in relation to their family size, of threatened species (qualitative importance) (Table 2). The rest, which comprise of 202 distinct families, 2146 species and approx. 20.26% of the Red List. These taxa will not be assessed or discussed directly.
Not all plant families are of the same size, nor do they have the same amount of endangered species. While there is a case for considering every species of an intrinsic equal conservation value, the conservation worth of an individual species has to take in account the current state of the family itself. If strategies have to be implemented, with limited financial resources and time, decisions based on these factors, and very probable others that have not been covered here, have to be made.
Larger families tend to have a higher amount of endangered species, which adds a quantitative conservation importance to the family. Out of the 262 families that are currently on the Red List, 62% of threatened species belong to the 30 families with the highest amount of Red Listed species. The 30 families with the highest amount of IUCN assessed Red Listed species are considered to be the most quantitatively important (table 2). In theory, by preserving in accessible ex situ collections every one of these 6799 Red Listed species, you would nearly accomplish the Target 8 of the GSPC (if solely the IUCN Red List was used as the method of classifying and ranking all currently known threatened species) (CBD, 2002). In relation to taxonomic size of the family, just over half of all threatened plants (51%) belong to the 30 taxonomically largest families. Because of the nature of such targets, often 30 with emphasis on the amount of species preserved, these groups also hold a potentially higher importance in policy making than other families.
While quantitatively important families are significant because of the amount of species they contain that are threatened, in most cases the percentage of threatened species in relation to their size, is very low. The mean value of the amount of species that are Red Listed of the 30 most important families is approx. 3.7%. While some of the families are some of the largest ones of all vascular plants, the percentage of threatened species can be very low. They range from 0.8-4 % (ie. Lamiaceae, Asteraceae, Orchidaceae, Fabaceae), and can high values such as 63-67 % (Zamiaceae, Dipterocarpaceae). As it stands, the 10 largest vascular plant families on the Red List all have values of threatened species in relation to their size between 0.85- 5.94% (they also hold approx. 29% of all Red List diversity). For the taxonomically largest groups, while the number of threatened species is high, the risk of extinction of the families involved is very low. These low values can be explained in many ways, but with the consideration that it is estimated that only 3.2 % of all plant diversity has been assessed by the Red List, the most probable explanation for these low numbers isn’t because they are better adapted or less threatened taxa, but because an important lack of assessment and Red Listing.
In contrast, some smaller families have a very high percentage of species that are currently threatened, making these families qualitatively important. When a family has a very high percentage of threatened species, while being numerically small, the family itself becomes threatened, making its preservation a higher priority. This is evident when taking in consideration that these families represent very specific and unique evolutionary lineages.
The top 30 most threatened families, based on the amount of species threatened, consist of 1645 species and makes up 15.5% all the Red List. In relation to their size, the range of values extends from 100% of the family being threatened (Dirachmaceae, Peridiscaceae, Cephalotaceae, Gomortegaceae and Gingoaceae) to 26 – 28% (Theaceae, Lecythidaceae, Cactaceae and others) (table 2). The mean value of the amount of species that each family contain that are Red Listed in this group is 36.7%. It’s important to note, that the 31 families with 100% are all very small. Dirachmaceae and Peridiscaceae both have two species; the other 3 families are monotypic.
While losing a species because of human induced threats is bad for any family, in families of very high qualitative importance it can be catastrophic and threaten the survival of the whole family. These species hold a proportionally to the size of their family a much greater weight. In the context of this work, based on the three groups, I have assign the species belonging to the 30 most qualitatively important groups to be the most threatened ones and are assigned the highest conservation value and priority. The quantitatively important families are the second most important, followed by the rest of the Red List.
It can be argued that this sort of classification should be based on the family with the highest number of threatened species, with focus on the families with the highest amount of threatened species and their ratio of CR, EN and VU. But, because of the very large differences in family size, this would completely ignore nearly all the families that I have classified as qualitatively important, on the basis that their number of threatened species are too low.
Interestingly, there are four families that are present on both the top 30 quantitative and qualitative lists. Dipterocarpaceae (366 threatened species, 67.7 % of the family threatened), Zamiaceae (138, 64.1%), Myristicaceae (154, 29.9%) and Cactaceae (415, 27.3%). These families hold a high quantitative and qualitative conservation value, and based on this method of classification of the families on the Red List, they can be considered as four of the most, in relation to their necessity of conservation work, important families of the Red List.
32
European IUCN Red List, which families are of highest taxonomical conservation value?
As the scope of the project was in assessing these species based on their ex situ condition, this was the most important factor that was taking in consideration when creating this rank. Only species belonging to the A and B were looked at (356 species, 76.55% of all threatened species) (Graph 3). These groups were are named A (CR), A (EN), A (VU), B (CR), B (EN) and B (VU), based on the BGCI no. of groupings and their Red List status (Graph 6 – 13). The were then divided again into 3 groups, depending on how their family was described as on the International IUCN Red List and the rank of importance that I have assigned to each. The numerical value 1 was assigned to the families belonging in the top 30 qualitative families, 2 for the families belonging to the top 30 quantitative families, 3 for the rest and an * was used to symbolised families that belonged to one of the 4 families that belonged on both 1 and 2 groups (Dipterocarpaceae, Zamiaceae , Myristicaceae and Cactaceae). As it stands, no family on the European Red List belongs to either rank 1 or *.
The groups were then finally ranked based on this ranking of their family in its designated group (i.e. Asteraceae is quantitatively more important than Fabaceae, and thus species in this taxon were placed above the latter). This was done to enable the classification the European Red List in a manner that allowed the ranking of all the species based on their relative ex situ conservation value, from highest to lowest. The notion of relative ex situ conservation in this thesis is not expressed as a specific numerical value, but as a ranking order of the species in question, based on the 4 criteria mention above (no. of locations, IUCN Red List status, % of the family that is threatened and size of the family)( table 5). This might be an inferior method of doing so, as it does not allow thorough statistical analysis to performed, but still does shows the concept in question in a simplistic and expressive manner.
Before doing so, it was considered important to evaluate, in similar manner to the International Red List, the taxonomic diversity of groups A and B. (Table 1, Annex). While this will not be used to assess their importance of the species in question in this work, it might have been of use to incorporate this data into assessing their relative ex situ 33 conservation value. It is possible that using the International Red list as the reference baseline might be flawed, and using more localised Red Lists (which up to date only the European one exists), to be a more effective method of doing so. For example, in the 30 most quantitative families, many of them do not exist in Europe. While using the International Red List does enable the analysis performed on the European Red List to be relatable to the global diversity of plants, it does limit the quality of the ranking priority of European species.
The list though was used in figuring out if the European Red List contains families that were classified as being important on an international level. There were no families in the European Red List of international qualitative importance. But, there were a total of 11 families of quantitative importance on the European Red List, with a total of 193 species out of the 465 of the list (41, 5 %) (Table 4).
Family name No. of species ASTERACEAE 77 FABACEAE 36 ORCHIDACEAE 33 POACEAE 16 ROSACEAE 12 CAMPANULACEAE 6 APOCYNACEAE 4 EUPHORBIACEAE 4 RUBIACEAE 3 ARACEAE 1 MALVACEAE 1 Table 4. Quantitatively important families in the European Red List
The rest of the families where not of special taxonomical importance, other than their IUCN status of their species and their ratio of CR, EN and VU.
34
Which species hold the highest relative ex situ conservation value on the European Red List?
All 356 threatened species of the European Red List was assessed and a table indicating the complete ranking order was created (Appendix table 2). Below is the list of the 100 highest ranking species of the European Red List, based on their relative ex situ conservation value:
Species Family IUCN Status Grouping Astragalus macrocarpus ssp. lefkarensis FABACEAE CR A 2 - 1 Astragalus tremolsianus FABACEAE CR A 2 - 1 Artemisia insipida ASTERACEAE CR A 2 - 2 Centaurea corensis ASTERACEAE CR A 2 - 2 Cheirolophus santos-abreui ASTERACEAE CR A 2 - 2 Jurinea fontqueri ASTERACEAE CR A 2 - 2 Lamyropsis microcephala ASTERACEAE CR A 2 - 2 Lotus eremiticus FABACEAE CR A 2 - 3 Epipactis condensata ORCHIDACEAE CR A 2 - 8 Campanula bohemica ssp. gelida¹ CAMPANULACEAE CR A 2 - 17 Beta patula AMARANTACEAE CR A 3 Athamanta cortiana APIACEAE CR A 3 Bupleurum dianthifolium APIACEAE CR A 3 Laserpitium longiradium APIACEAE CR A 3 Rorippa valdes-bermejoi BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Coronopus navasii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Crambe feuillei BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Crambe tamadabensis BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Crambe wildpretii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Lepidium turczaninowii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Helianthemum teneriffae CISTACEAE CR A 3 Monanthes wildpretii CRASSULACEAE CR A 3 Vicia costae FABACEAE CR A 3 Vicia ferreirensis FABACEAE CR A 3 Scilla morrisii HYACINTHACEAE CR A 3 Iris boissieri IRIDACEAE CR A 3 Isoetes malinverniana ISOETACEAE CR A 3 Salvia herbanica LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Salvia veneris LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Sideritis serrata LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Limonium calabrum PLUMBAGINACEAE CR A 3 Limonium sibthorpianum PLUMBAGINACEAE CR A 3 Consolida samia RANUNCULACEAE CR A 3 Delphinium caseyi RANUNCULACEAE CR A 3 Kunkeliella subsucculenta SANTALACEAE CR A 3 Veronica oetaea SCROPHULARIACEAE CR A 3 Isoetes heldreichii ISOETACEAE CR A 3 Kunkeliella psilotoclada SANTALACEAE CR A 3 Adenocarpus ombriosus FABACEAE EN A 2 - 1 35
Cicer graecum FABACEAE EN A 2 - 1 Medicago rupestris FABACEAE EN A 2 - 1 Teline rosmarinifolia FABACEAE EN A 2 - 1 Carduus myriacanthus ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Centaurea borjae ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Centaurea princeps¹ ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Crepis crocifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Crepis granatensis ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Leuzea longifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Senecio elodes ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Wagenitzia lancifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 - 2 Cephalanthera cucullata ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Dactylorhiza kalopissii ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Epipactis troodi ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Gymnadenia archiducis-joannis ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Gymnadenia lithopolitanica ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Gymnadenia stiriaca ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Gymnadenia widderi ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Himantoglossum affine ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Himantoglossum comperianum¹ ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Himantoglossum metlesicsianum¹ ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Ophrys atlantica ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Orchis patens ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Platanthera algeriensis ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 - 8 Ceropegia dichotoma ssp. krainzii¹ APOCYNACEAE EN A 2 - 15 Jasione lusitanica CAMPANULACEAE EN A 2 - 17 Avena insularis POACEAE EN A 2 - 28 Micropyropsis tuberosa POACEAE EN A 2 - 28 Poa riphaea POACEAE EN A 2 - 28 Pseudarrhenatherum pallens POACEAE EN A 2 - 28 Stipa styriaca POACEAE EN A 2 - 28 Bassia saxicola AMARANTACEAE EN A 3 Allium pervestitum AMARYLLIDACEAE EN A 3 Seseli intricatum APIACEAE EN A 3 Solenanthus albanicus BORAGINACEAE EN A 3 Barbarea lepuznica BRASSICACEAE EN A 3 Callitriche regis-jubae CALLITRICHACEAE EN A 3 Callitriche transvolgensis CALLITRICHACEAE EN A 3 Sambucus nigra ssp. palmensis¹ CAPRIFOLIACEAE EN A 3 Moehringia fontqueri CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN A 3 Moehringia tommasinii CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN A 3 Helianthemum caput-felis CISTACEAE EN A 3 Convolvulus lopezsocasii CONVOLVULACEAE EN A 3 Herniaria lusitanica ssp. berlengiana ILLECEBRACEAE EN A 3 Isoetes fluitans ISOETACEAE EN A 3 Micromeria leucantha LAMIACEAE EN A 3 Rosmarinus tomentosus LAMIACEAE EN A 3 Pinguicula nevadensis LENTIBULARIACEAE EN A 3 Limonium strictissimum PLUMBAGINACEAE EN A 3 Polygonum praelongum POLYGONACEAE EN A 3 Antirrhinum lopesianum SCROPHULARIACEAE EN A 3 Linaria hellenica SCROPHULARIACEAE EN A 3 Astragalus setosulus FABACEAE VU A 2 - 1 Genista benehoavensis FABACEAE VU A 2 - 1 36
Genista tetragona FABACEAE VU A 2 - 1 Medicago glandulosa FABACEAE VU A 2 - 1 Medicago kotovii FABACEAE VU A 2 - 1 Crocus hartmannianus IRIDACEAE VU A 2 - 1 Canariothamnus hermosae¹ ASTERACEAE VU A 2 - 2 Centaurea gadorensis ASTERACEAE VU A 2 - 2 Centaurea immanuelis-loewii ASTERACEAE VU A 2 - 2 Table 5. The 100 species with the highest relative ex situ conservation value of the European IUCN Red List.
All the 100 species on this list are currently not present in an ex situ site in the world.
While target 8 of the GSPC has been reached in relation to European species, based on these findings, with a worrying 76 % of all threatened species to be under represented in ex situ, I propose that the necessary actions be taken:
a) Institutions have to urgently focus on collecting under represented species with a high relative ex situ conservation value; especially those that are completely absent from all ex situ institutions and botanical gardens and increase the number of their locations to at least 5. Even if the species does go extinct in the wild, this is the most cost effective way of guaranteeing that a species does not go completely extinct. This should be the highest priority at this moment in time. There is currently 137 European threatened species that are completely absent from any collection in the world. 38 of them are CR. b) Institutions that currently have species of high relative ex situ conservation value should take measures to ensure that they receive the appropriate and necessary attention. These will be briefly discussed in the following section.
37
CUBG Red List collection
The CUBG is a botanical garden located in Cambridge, England. It was founded in 1831 for the University of Cambridge and was opened to public in 1848. It attracts approx. 200.000 visitors per year. While it used to be heavily focused on plant research and taxonomical work, the majority of the research on site is performed at the Sainsbury Laboratory Cambridge University. It attracts a lot of attention from gardening and horticultural enthusiasts, and the garden’s main focus, as of the past decade, is mainly recreational and educational.
While the principle of relative ex situ conservation value was applied to the European Red List, it can also be used to evaluate specific living collections as well. The final part of this project was to evaluate the IUCN Red List collection of the CUBG. Can the notion of relative ex situ conservation value be applied and of use to specific collection at an specific institution?
By applying the same process to these species, the CUBG collection was ranked based on their relative ex situ conservation value. By doing so, I was able to establish three species in their collection of high relative ex situ conservation importance. I argue that it would be very counter-productive for an institution to allocate their financial resources and time to all their threatened plants, simply because of their IUCN status. But by assessing a collection in this manner, it is possible to locate which plants are of greater importance in the context of international ex situ conservation, enabling the institution to raise its value as an agent of plant conservation by focusing on the species that require it the most.
It is of the high importance, when dealing with species of very high relative ex situ conservation in a collection, that the institution in question takes the necessary course of action to guarantee the genetic fitness of the plant’s material and that it matches as closely as possible the genetic diversity of the natural population (Brown & Briggs, 1991). These plants are scarce in ex situ, and special attention is required to insure in the long term material that is viable for re-introduction. It has been well documented that the long-term cultivation of plants can be quite problematic. Populations of plants in ex situ are often small and are faced with similar problems often associated with naturally occurring small populations. 38
The major obstacle that the horticultural staff of an ex situ institution has to overcome is genetic erosion. Over time, the fitness of the species can be diminished by the combined effects genetic drift, inbreeding depression (often expressed by an increase of homozygosity), the accumulation of deleterious mutations (Ellstrand & Elam, 1993; Reed & Franklin 2003) hybridization with other species of the same genus (in the case of orchids that is not even necessary). There is often also a human based selection of traits that are more interesting for reasons of display (this is pronounced in botanical gardens were the display value for the general public is often a priority) and loss of traits that are of critical importance for the species ability to survive with the biotic and abiotic uncertainties that it would be faced with in natural environment. There will also be a selective bias for plants to accumulate traits that are better suited for living in the theoretically ideal environment that is often simulated in glasshouses. While for long-lived perennial species these threats are limited, the can become quite important when dealing with short lived annual plants (Enβlin et al, 2011). The best solution to these problems is the cultivation of mani individual plants from multiple naturally occurring populations (Valois, 1994; Vaxevanidou et al, 2006).
Out of the 111 species in the CUBG IUCN collection, the mean no. of locations of all plants is 53.53. It is evident that no species in group A were to be found, as that would automatically disqualify from completely absent from all living collections, as they would be present in this one. Only 3 species are considered to warrant a higher level of attention based on this ranking order, Sporobolus caespitosus (Poaceae, CR, no. locations = 2), Echuim acanthocarpum (Boragincaceae, CR, 4), and Phaedranassa viridiflora (Amaryllidaceae, EN, 1). Their value is ranked in that order. While S. caespitosus and E. acanthocarpum are highest in ranking, because of their IUCN status, it’s interesting to note that the CUBG’s living collection, based on the BGCI database, is the only one in the world to contain Phaedranassa viridiflora .Approx. 98% of all threatened plants in their collection are not deemed to be of high relative ex situ conservation value and thus do not require special attention from the institution. Located in the appendix is a table with all species, ranked based on their relative ex situ conservation value
39
Conclusion and final remarks
Not all botanic gardens in the world function with plant conservation as their main goal. Recreation, leisure, horticulture, education and even taxonomic research can be the main orientation of an ex situ plant institution. In this thesis, the CUBG was used as the example site, an institution that nowadays is more focused towards recreation, education and horticultural work rather than plant conservation. But even in a botanic garden were conservation is not the main emphasis, three species were found in their collection with a high relative ex situ value.
The effort in reducing species extinction is a global one, where everyone is a stakeholder, and the whole humanity loses from it. If all ex situ institutions, all 3000 botanical gardens estimated by the BGCI to currently exist (BGCI, 2015) managed to preserve at least one species in the long-term (keeping it genetically fit), that would consist of approx.. 1/3 of all threatened species in safe numbers.
Ex situ maintenance of species has been predominantly influenced by in situ work and used as complimentary effort to it. I argue that if the world’s botanic gardens do not start accumulating more threatened species in ex situ, then because of their inadequate representation, threatened species most start receiving a much higher allocation of international and national funds to guarantee to the highest probability that they do not go extinct in the wild. The latter will be much more costly. I propose that a concept like relative ex situ value of a species to be a reasonable and financially low method of achieving many of the targets that are required to protect global plant diversity.
40
REFERENCES
Barrett S.C.H. & Kohn J.R. (1991) Genetic consequences of small population size in plants. Genetics and conservation of rare plants (Eds Da Falk, KE Holsinger) pp. 3-30 (Oxford Universit Press: New York).
BGCI. (2015) GardenSearch Database. Availablr online at www.bgci.org/garden_search.php
BGCI. (2015) PlantSearch Database. Availablr online at www.bgci.org/plant_search.php
Bilz, M., Kell, S.P., Maxted, N. & Lansdown, R.V. (2011). European Red List of Vascular Plants. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Bramwell, D. (2003) On the side of the world’s threatened flora. Plant talk 32,4.
Brown A.H.D. & Briggs J, D, (1991) Genetic consequences of small population size in plants. Genetics and conservation of rare plants (Eds Da Falk, KE Holsinger) pp. 3-30 (Oxford Universit Press: New York).
Callmander, M.W., Schatz, G.E. & Lowry II, P.P. (2005) IUCN Red List assessment and the Global Strateg for Plant Conservation: taxonomists must act now. Taxon 54: 1047-1050.
CBD. (2002a) Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
CBD. (2002b) 2010 Biodiversity Target. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Cibrian – Jaramillo, A., Hird, A., Oleas, N., Ma, H., Meerow, A.W., Fransisco – Ortega, J. & Griffith, M. P. (2013) What is the conservation value of a plant in a botanic garden? Using indicators to improve management of ex situ collections. Botanical Review, 79:559- 577.
Cochrane J.A., Crawford A.D. & Monks L. (2007) The significance of ex situ seed conservation to reintroduction of threatened plants.
Cronquist, A. (1981) An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. Columbia University Press, New York.u 41
Ellstrand, N.C. & Elam, D.R. (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population sizes; implications for plant conservation. Annual review of Ecology and Systematics 24: 217-242.
Enβlin A., Sandner T.M. & Matthies D. (2011) Consequences of ex situ cultivation of plants: Genetic diversit, fitness and adaptation of Cynoglossum officinale L. in botanic gardens. Biological Conservation 144: 272-278.
Faith, D.P., Reid, C. A. M., & Hunter, J. (2004) Intergrating phylogenetic diversit, complementarity and endemism for conservation assessment. Conservation Biolog 18:255- 261. S.B.
Havens, K., Vitt, P., Maunder, M., Guerrant, E., O. & Dixon, K. (2006) Ex situ plant conservation and beyond. Bioscience 56:525-531.
IUCN. (2001) IUCN Red List Categories. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Mooers, A.O., Heard, S.B. & Chrostowski E. (2005) Evolutionary heritage as a metric for conservation. Pp. 120-138 in Phylogeny and Conservation (A. Purvis, T.L. Brooks and J.L. Gittleman, eds.) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Oldfield, S., F. (2009) Botanic gardens and their conservation of tree species. Trends in Plant Science 14: 581- 583.
Pitman, N. & Jorgensen, P.M. (2002) Estimating the size of the world’s threatened flora. Science 298, 989.
Reed, D.H. & Franklin, R. (2003) Correlation between fitness and genetic diversity. Conservation Biology 17: 230-237.
Roskov Y., Abucay L., Orrell T., Nicolson D., Kunze T., Flann C., Bailly N., Kirk P., Bourgoin T., DeWalt R.E., Decock W. &De Wever A. (2015) Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 30th July 2015. Digital resource at www.catalogueoflife.org/col. Species 2000: Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands. ISSN 2405-8858.
Schatz, G.E. (2009) Plants on the IUCN Red List: setting priorities to inform conservation. Trends in Plant Science 14: 638 – 642.
Stevens, P. F. (2001). Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. Version 12, July 2012 [and more or less continuously updated since].
The Plant List (2010). Version 1. Published on the Internet; http://www.theplantlist.org/ (last accessed 15JulY). 42
Valois, A.C. C. (1994) Genetic resources of plants. Acta Horticulturae 360: 113-120.
Vaxevanidou, Z., Gonzalez – Martinez, S.C., Climent, J. & Gill, L. (2006) Tree populations bordering on extinction; a case study in the endemic Canary Island pine. Biological Conservation 129: 451- 460. 43
APPENDIX
Appendix table 1. The International IUCN Red List, reclassified based on the APG III, ranked based on the families with the highest amount of assessed threatened species.
% of IUCN Red Family Names Order Red Listed species Size of family, in no. of species List % of family threatened FABACEAE FABALES 751 20672 7.09 3.63 ASTERACEAE ASTERALES 501 35629 4.73 1.41 CACTACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 415 1515 3.92 27.39 RUBIACEAE GENTIANALES 395 13581 3.73 2.91 EUPHORBIACEAE MALPIGHIALES 381 6407 3.60 5.95 DIPTEROCARPACEAE MALVALES 366 540 3.46 67.78 ARECACEAE ARECALES 321 2561 3.03 12.53 ORCHIDACEAE ASPARAGALES 307 27753 2.90 1.11 MELASTOMATACEAE MYRTALES 289 2947 2.73 9.81 MYRTACEAE MYRTALES 269 5603 2.54 4.80 SAPOTACEAE ERICALES 238 1270 2.25 18.74 LAURACEAE LAURALES 200 3277 1.89 6.10 ANNONACEAE MAGNOLIALES 193 2440 1.82 7.91 MALVACEAE MALVALES 177 5320 1.67 3.33 APOCYNACEAE GENTIANALES 160 6374 1.51 2.51 MYRISTICACEAE MAGNOLIALES 154 514 1.45 29.96 CAMPANULACEAE ASTERALES 153 2373 1.44 6.45 MELIACEAE SAPINDALES 147 725 1.39 20.28 BROMELIACEAE POALES 146 3327 1.38 4.39 ARALIACEAE APIALES 141 1443 1.33 9.77 ZAMIACEAE CYCADALES 138 216 1.30 63.89 44
GESNERIACEAE LAMIALES 126 3302 1.19 3.82 CLUSIACEAE MALPGHIALES 117 868 1.10 13.48 RUTACEAE SAPINDALES 107 2131 1.01 5.02 ROSACEAE ROSALES 106 5609 1.00 1.89 SAPINDACEAE SAPINDALES 105 1907 0.99 5.51 PIPERACEAE PIPERALES 102 3324 0.96 3.07 POACEAE POALES 101 11543 0.95 0.87 ACANTHACEAE LAMIALES 97 5489 0.92 1.77 ARACEAE ALISMATALES 96 3353 0.91 2.86 SALICACEAE MALPIGHIALES 93 1561 0.88 5.96 PRIMULACEAE ERICALES 90 3145 0.85 2.86 MAGNOLIACEAE MAGNOLIALES 86 248 0.81 34.68 BRASSICACEAE BRASSICALES 83 3778 0.78 2.20 LECYTHIDACEAE ERICALES 82 300 0.77 27.33 ANACARDIACEAE SAPINDALES 80 909 0.76 8.80 THEACEAE ERICALES 77 288 0.73 26.74 EBENACEAE ERICALES 70 755 0.66 9.27 BORAGINACEAE BORAGINALES 67 3385 0.63 1.98 LAMIACEAE LAMIALES 66 7756 0.62 0.85 AQUIFOLIACEAE AQUIFOLIALES 65 631 0.61 10.30 XANTHORRHOEACEAE ASPARAGALES 64 1224 0.60 5.23 VERBENACEAE LAMIALES 63 958 0.59 6.58 FAGACEAE FAGALES 63 1093 0.59 5.76 NEPENTHACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 62 144 0.59 43.06 CELASTRACEAE CELASTRALES 62 1372 0.59 4.52 SCROPHULARIACEAE LAMIALES 62 2281 0.59 2.72 CYCADACEAE CYCADALES 57 115 0.54 49.57 PINACEAE PINALES 57 231 0.54 24.68 APIACEAE APIALES 57 2786 0.54 2.05 SOLANACEAE SOLANALES 56 2030 0.53 2.76 45
PODOCARPACEAE PINALES 55 191 0.52 28.80 CARYOPHYLLACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 55 2295 0.52 2.40 BURSERACEAE SAPINDALES 53 615 0.50 8.62 CYPERACEAE POALES 53 5732 0.50 0.92 MORACEAE ROSALES 51 1179 0.48 4.33 DRYOPTERIDACEAE POLYPODIALES 50 1871 0.47 2.67 CUPRESSACEAE PINALES 46 166 0.43 27.71 BEGONIACEAE CURCUBITALES 45 1529 0.42 2.94 PODOSTEMACEAE MALPIGHIALES 42 209 0.40 20.10 CHRYSOBALANACEAE MALPIGHIALES 37 530 0.35 6.98 PROTEACEAE PROTEALES 37 965 0.35 3.83 AMARYLLIDACEAE ASPARAGALES 37 2164 0.35 1.71 SYMPLOCACEAE ERICALES 36 169 0.34 21.30 BIGNONIACEAE LAMIALES 35 841 0.33 4.16 THYMELAEACEAE MALVALES 32 776 0.30 4.12 ASPARAGACEAE ASPARAGALES 31 3632 0.29 0.85 COMBRETACEAE MYRTALES 30 414 0.28 7.25 ELAEOCARPACEAE OXALIDALES 30 611 0.28 4.91 ZINGIBERACEAE ZINGERBERALES 30 1548 0.28 1.94 AMARANTHACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 29 1825 0.27 1.59 BERBERIDACEAE RANUNCULALES 28 740 0.26 3.78 ACTINIDIACEAE ERICALES 27 157 0.25 17.20 VIOLACEAE MALPIGHIALES 27 490 0.25 5.51 LYTHRACEAE MYRTALES 26 540 0.25 4.81 PASSIFLORACEAE MALPIGHIALES 26 694 0.25 3.75 ARAUCARIACEAE PINALES 25 39 0.24 64.10 PITTOSPORACEAE APIALES 25 128 0.24 19.53 GENTIANACEAE GENTIANALES 25 1682 0.24 1.49 OLEACEAE LAMIALES 24 689 0.23 3.48 LORANTHACEAE SANTANALES 24 803 0.23 2.99 46
URTICACEAE ROSALES 24 1303 0.23 1.84 SANTALACEAE SANTANALES 23 577 0.22 3.99 RHAMNACEAE ROSALES 23 640 0.22 3.59 POLYGONACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 23 1266 0.22 1.82 ERIOCAULACEAE POALES 22 1224 0.21 1.80 POLYPODIACEAE POLYPODIALES 22 1601 0.21 1.37 CUNONIACEAE OXALIDALES 21 206 0.20 10.19 PLUMBAGINACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 21 517 0.20 4.06 MALPIGHIACEAE MALPGHIALES 21 1029 0.20 2.04 ERICACEAE ERICALES 21 3343 0.20 0.63 MARANTACEAE ZINGERBERALES 20 539 0.19 3.71 CAPRIFOLIACEAE DIPSACALES 20 655 0.19 3.05 PANDANACEAE PANDANALES 20 1048 0.19 1.91 MONIMIACEAE LAURALES 19 86 0.18 22.09 OCHNACEAE MALPIGHIALES 18 420 0.17 4.29 THELYPTERIDACEAE POLYPODIALES 18 951 0.17 1.89 BRUNELLIACEAE OXALIDALES 17 60 0.16 28.33 STYRACACEAE ERICALES 17 117 0.16 14.53 BALSAMINACEAE ERICALES 17 304 0.16 5.59 ARISTOLOCHIACEAE PIPERALES 17 616 0.16 2.76 TAXACEAE CUPRESSALES 16 31 0.15 51.61 CYCLANTHACEAE PANDANALES 16 230 0.15 6.96 ATHYRIACEAE POLYPODIALES 16 658 0.15 2.43 CONVOLVULACEAE SOLANALES 16 906 0.15 1.77 IRIDACEAE ASPARAGALES 16 2182 0.15 0.73 RANUNCULACEAE RANUNCULALES 16 2242 0.15 0.71 LOGANIACEAE GENTIANALES 15 205 0.14 7.32 HELICONIACEAE ZINGERBERALES 15 207 0.14 7.25 BETULACEAE FAGALES 15 230 0.14 6.52 GERANIACEAE GERANIALES 15 621 0.14 2.42 47
POLYGALACEAE FABALES 15 729 0.14 2.06 ISOETACEAE ISOETALES 14 93 0.13 15.05 ICACINACEAE UNPLACED 14 139 0.13 10.07 LOASACEAE CORNALES 14 270 0.13 5.19 CAPPARACEAE BRASSICALES 14 381 0.13 3.67 PTERIDACEAE POLYPODIALES 14 1226 0.13 1.14 LEJEUNEACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 14 2270 0.13 0.62 ANISOPHYLLEACEAE CURCUBITALES 13 37 0.12 35.14 JUGLANDACEAE FAGALES 13 84 0.12 15.48 CORNACEAE CORNALES 13 115 0.12 11.30 RHIZOPHORACEAE MALPIGHIALES 13 142 0.12 9.15 LILIACEAE LILIALES 13 712 0.12 1.83 AIZOACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 13 1067 0.12 1.22 ALSTROEMERIACEAE LILIALES 12 254 0.11 4.72 ULMACEAE ROSALES 11 61 0.10 18.03 SIMAROUBACEAE SAPINDALES 11 102 0.10 10.78 DICHAPETALACEAE MALPIGHIALES 11 176 0.10 6.25 NYCTAGINACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 11 391 0.10 2.81 LYCOPODIACEAE LYCOPODIALES 11 475 0.10 2.32 PLANTAGINACEAE LAMIALES 11 1115 0.10 0.99 SARCOLAENACEAE MALVALES 10 65 0.09 15.38 OXALIDACEAE OXALIDALES 10 376 0.09 2.66 CYATHEACEAE CYATHEALES 10 514 0.09 1.95 OLACACEAE SANTANALES 9 113 0.08 7.96 ERYTHROXYLACEAE MALPIGHIALES 9 259 0.08 3.47 MENISPERMACEAE RANUNCULALES 9 379 0.08 2.37 ONAGRACEAE MYRTALES 9 720 0.08 1.25 CRASSULACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 9 1312 0.08 0.69 TROPAEOLACEAE BRASSICALES 8 76 0.08 10.53 HAMAMELIDACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 8 94 0.08 8.51 48
XYRIDACEAE POALES 8 381 0.08 2.10 HYMENOPHYLLACEAE HYMENOPHYLLALSE 8 431 0.08 1.86 CISTACEAE MALVALES 7 154 0.07 4.55 BURMANNIACEAE DIOSCOREALES 7 159 0.07 4.40 DILLENIACEAE DILLENIALES 7 188 0.07 3.72 LENTIBULARIACEAE LAMIALES 7 220 0.07 3.18 CONNARACEAE OXALIDALES 7 236 0.07 2.97 ASPLENIACEAE POLYPODIALES 7 515 0.07 1.36 COMMELINACEAE COMMELINALES 7 723 0.07 0.97 ASTEROPEIACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 6 8 0.06 75.00 ZOSTERACEAE ALISMATALES 6 19 0.06 31.58 CANELLACEAE CANELLALES 6 21 0.06 28.57 MARSILEACEAE SALVINIALES 6 32 0.06 18.75 HERNANDIACEAE LAURALES 6 44 0.06 13.64 APONOGETONACEAE ALISMATALES 6 55 0.06 10.91 DENNSTAEDTIACEAE POLYPODIALES 6 220 0.06 2.73 COLCHICACEAE LILIALES 6 253 0.06 2.37 DIOSCOREACEAE DIOSCOREALES 6 650 0.06 0.92 SAXIFRAGACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 6 775 0.06 0.77 AMARYLLIDACEAE ASPARAGALES 6 2164 0.06 0.28 CARYOCARACEAE MALPIGHIALES 5 26 0.05 19.23 WINTERACEAE CANELLALES 5 33 0.05 15.15 HUMIRIACEAE MALPIGHIALES 5 47 0.05 10.64 ALISMATACEAE ALISMATALES 5 111 0.05 4.50 BUXACEAE BUXALES 5 118 0.05 4.24 GOODENIACEAE ASTERALES 5 134 0.05 3.73 COSTACEAE ZINGERBERALES 5 137 0.05 3.65 ZYGOPHYLLACEAE ZYGOPHYLLALES 5 154 0.05 3.25 LINACEAE MALPGHIALES 5 167 0.05 2.99 DROSERACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 5 187 0.05 2.67 49
BLECHNACEAE POLYPODIALES 5 219 0.05 2.28 TORRICELLIACEAE APIALES 4 8 0.04 50.00 GNETACEAE GNETALES 4 31 0.04 12.90 MENYANTHACEAE ASTERALES 4 39 0.04 10.26 CARICACEAE BRASSICALES 4 43 0.04 9.30 CHLORANTHACEAE CHLORANTHALES 4 66 0.04 6.06 SABIACEAE UNPLACED 4 93 0.04 4.30 GROSSULARIACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 4 134 0.04 2.99 HYDROCHARITACEAE ALISMATALES 4 148 0.04 2.70 VOCHYSIACEAE MYRTALES 4 170 0.04 2.35 AMBLYSTEGIACEAE 4 530 0.04 0.75 NECKERACEAE HYPNALES 4 827 0.04 0.48 PAPAVERACEAE RANUNCULALES 4 906 0.04 0.44 CUCURBITACEAE CURCUBITALES 4 989 0.04 0.40 ANCISTROCLADACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 3 20 0.03 15.00 STAPHYLEACEAE CROSSOSOMATALES 3 30 0.03 10.00 MYRICACEAE FAGALES 3 48 0.03 6.25 CLETHRACEAE ERICALES 3 83 0.03 3.61 MARCGRAVIACEAE ERICALES 3 104 0.03 2.88 PORTULACACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 3 278 0.03 1.08 JUNCACEAE POALES 3 502 0.03 0.60 POTTIACEAE POTTIALES 3 3223 0.03 0.09 DIRACHMACEAE ROSALES 2 2 0.02 100.00 PERIDISCACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 2 2 0.02 100.00 EXORMOTHECACEAE MARCHANTIALES 2 4 0.02 50.00 MELIANTHACEAE GERANIALES 2 13 0.02 15.38 IXONANTHACEAE MALPIGHIALES 2 17 0.02 11.76 SACCOLOMATACEAE POLYPODIALES 2 17 0.02 11.76 ECHINODIACEAE 2 23 0.02 8.70 OPILIACEAE SANTANALES 2 33 0.02 6.06 50
TRIURIDACEAE PANDANALES 2 54 0.02 3.70 SCHISTOCHILACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 2 103 0.02 1.94 ELAEAGNACEAE ROSALES 2 106 0.02 1.89 PERACEAE MALPIGHIALES 2 114 0.02 1.75 CEPHALOZIACEAE JUGERMANNIALES 2 133 0.02 1.50 SCAPANIACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 2 139 0.02 1.44 HYPOXIDACEAE ASPARAGALES 2 147 0.02 1.36 ADOXACEAE DIPSACALES 2 156 0.02 1.28 RICCIACEAE MARCHANTIALES 2 178 0.02 1.12 POLEMONIACEAE ERICALES 2 309 0.02 0.65 DITRICHACEAE 2 347 0.02 0.58 LEPIDOZIACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 2 580 0.02 0.34 SARRACENIACEAE ERICALES 2 643 0.02 0.31 CEPHALOTACEAE OXALIDALES 1 1 0.01 100.00 GOMORTEGACEAE LAURALES 1 1 0.01 100.00 TICODENDRACEAE FAGALES 1 1 0.01 100.00 GINKGOACEAE GINKGOALES 1 1 0.01 100.00 AKANIACEAE BRASSICALES 1 2 0.01 50.00 DEGENERIACEAE MAGNOLIALES 1 2 0.01 50.00 TAKAKIACEAE TAKAKIALES 1 2 0.01 50.00 HUACEAE OXALIDALES 1 3 0.01 33.33 MORINGACEAE BRASSICALES 1 4 0.01 25.00 BRYOXIPHIACEAE BRYOXIPHIALES 1 4 0.01 25.00 BYBLIDACEAE LAMIALES 1 7 0.01 14.29 PLATANACEAE PROTEALES 1 7 0.01 14.29 HYDROSTACHYACEAE CORNALES 1 9 0.01 11.11 POSIDONIACEAE ALISMATALES 1 9 0.01 11.11 CRYPTERONIACEAE MYRTALES 1 12 0.01 8.33 PLEUROZIACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 1 14 0.01 7.14 PENAEACEAE MYRTALES 1 16 0.01 6.25 51
CYSTOPTERIDACEAE POLYPODIALES 1 17 0.01 5.88 OLEANDRACEAE POLYPODIALES 1 19 0.01 5.26 RAFFLESIACEAE MALPIGHIALES 1 21 0.01 4.76 TECOPHILAEACEAE ASPARAGALES 1 25 0.01 4.00 DENDROCEROTACEAE DENDROCEROTALES 1 25 0.01 4.00 RHACHITHECIACEAE 1 31 0.01 3.23 PAEONIACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 1 36 0.01 2.78 ASTELIACEAE ASPARAGALES 1 37 0.01 2.70 WOODSIACEAE POLYPODIALES 1 45 0.01 2.22 NYMPHAEACEAE NYMPHAEALES 1 56 0.01 1.79 CALYCERACEAE ASTERALES 1 61 0.01 1.64 GUNNERACEAE GUNNERALES 1 69 0.01 1.45 FRANKENIACEAE CARYOPHYLLALES 1 73 0.01 1.37 HALORAGACEAE SAXIFRAGALES 1 76 0.01 1.32 CALYPOGEIACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 1 97 0.01 1.03 METZGERIACEAE METZGERIALES 1 110 0.01 0.91 MARATTIACEAE MARATTIALES 1 148 0.01 0.68 ANTHOCEROTACEAE ANTHOCEROTALES 1 161 0.01 0.62 PTYCHOMITRIACEAE 1 165 0.01 0.61 POTAMOGETONACEAE ALISMATALES 1 166 0.01 0.60 RADULACEAE JUNGERMANNIALES 1 190 0.01 0.53 LESKEACEAE HYPNALES 1 383 0.01 0.26 SPHAGNACEAE SPHAGNALES 1 384 0.01 0.26 PTEROBRYACEAE LEUCODENALES 1 393 0.01 0.25 SELAGINELLACEAE 1 404 0.01 0.25 GRIMMIACEAE GRIMMIALES 1 758 0.01 0.13 FISSIDENTACEAE DICRANALES 1 818 0.01 0.12 ORTHOTRICHACEAE ORTHOTRICHALES 1 875 0.01 0.11 HYPNACEAE HYPNALES 1 916 0.01 0.11 BRACHYTHECIACEAE HYPNALES 1 1117 0.01 0.09 52
DICRANACEAE DICRANALES 1 1200 0.01 0.08
Appendix table 2. The European Red List, reclassified based on the APG III and organised into rank expressing the relative ex-situ conservation value of each species, from highest to lowest.
Species Family IUCN Grouping IUCN group Ranking in group Vicia costae FABACEAE CR A 2 1 Vicia ferreirensis FABACEAE CR A 2 1
A Astragalus macrocarpus ssp. lefkarensis FABACEAE CR 2 1 Astragalus tremolsianus FABACEAE CR A 2 1 Lotus eremiticus FABACEAE CR A 2 1 Artemisia insipida ASTERACEAE CR A 2 2 Centaurea corensis ASTERACEAE CR A 2 2 Cheirolophus santos-abreui ASTERACEAE CR A 2 2 Jurinea fontqueri ASTERACEAE CR A 2 2 Lamyropsis microcephala ASTERACEAE CR A 2 2 Epipactis condensata ORCHIDACEAE CR A 2 8
A Campanula bohemica ssp. gelida¹ CAMPANULACEAE CR 2 17 Beta patula AMARANTACEAE CR A 3 Athamanta cortiana APIACEAE CR A 3 Bupleurum dianthifolium APIACEAE CR A 3 Laserpitium longiradium APIACEAE CR A 3 Rorippa valdes-bermejoi BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Coronopus navasii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3
53
Crambe feuillei BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Crambe tamadabensis BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Crambe wildpretii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Lepidium turczaninowii BRASSICACEAE CR A 3 Helianthemum teneriffae CISTACEAE CR A 3 Monanthes wildpretii CRASSULACEAE CR A 3 Scilla morrisii HYACINTHACEAE CR A 3 Iris boissieri IRIDACEAE CR A 3 Isoetes malinverniana ISOETACEAE CR A 3 Salvia herbanica LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Salvia veneris LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Sideritis serrata LAMIACEAE CR A 3 Limonium calabrum PLUMBAGINACEAE CR A 3 Limonium sibthorpianum PLUMBAGINACEAE CR A 3 Consolida samia RANUNCULACEAE CR A 3 Delphinium caseyi RANUNCULACEAE CR A 3 Kunkeliella subsucculenta SANTALACEAE CR A 3 Veronica oetaea SCROPHULARIACEAE CR A 3 Isoetes heldreichii ISOETACEAE CR A 3 Kunkeliella psilotoclada SANTALACEAE CR A 3 Adenocarpus ombriosus FABACEAE EN A 2 1 Cicer graecum FABACEAE EN A 2 1 Medicago rupestris FABACEAE EN A 2 1 Teline rosmarinifolia FABACEAE EN A 2 1 Carduus myriacanthus ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Centaurea borjae ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Centaurea princeps¹ ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Crepis crocifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 54
Crepis granatensis ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Leuzea longifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Senecio elodes ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Wagenitzia lancifolia ASTERACEAE EN A 2 2 Cephalanthera cucullata ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Dactylorhiza kalopissii ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Epipactis troodi ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8
A Gymnadenia archiducis-joannis ORCHIDACEAE EN 2 8 Gymnadenia lithopolitanica ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Gymnadenia stiriaca ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Gymnadenia widderi ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Himantoglossum affine ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8
A Himantoglossum comperianum¹ ORCHIDACEAE EN 2 8
A Himantoglossum metlesicsianum¹ ORCHIDACEAE EN 2 8 Ophrys atlantica ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Orchis patens ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8 Platanthera algeriensis ORCHIDACEAE EN A 2 8
A Ceropegia dichotoma ssp. krainzii¹ APOCYNACEAE EN 2 15 Jasione lusitanica CAMPANULACEAE EN A 2 17 Avena insularis POACEAE EN A 2 28 Micropyropsis tuberosa POACEAE EN A 2 28 Poa riphaea POACEAE EN A 2 28 Pseudarrhenatherum pallens POACEAE EN A 2 28 Stipa styriaca POACEAE EN A 2 28 55
Bassia saxicola AMARANTACEAE EN A 3 Allium pervestitum AMARYLLIDACEAE EN A 3 Seseli intricatum APIACEAE EN A 3 Solenanthus albanicus BORAGINACEAE EN A 3 Barbarea lepuznica BRASSICACEAE EN A 3 Callitriche regis-jubae CALLITRICHACEAE EN A 3 Callitriche transvolgensis CALLITRICHACEAE EN A 3
A Sambucus nigra ssp. palmensis¹ CAPRIFOLIACEAE EN 3 Moehringia fontqueri CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN A 3 Moehringia tommasinii CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN A 3 Helianthemum caput-felis CISTACEAE EN A 3 Convolvulus lopezsocasii CONVOLVULACEAE EN A 3
A Herniaria lusitanica ssp. berlengiana ILLECEBRACEAE EN 3 Isoetes fluitans ISOETACEAE EN A 3 Micromeria leucantha LAMIACEAE EN A 3 Rosmarinus tomentosus LAMIACEAE EN A 3 Pinguicula nevadensis LENTIBULARIACEAE EN A 3 Limonium strictissimum PLUMBAGINACEAE EN A 3 Polygonum praelongum POLYGONACEAE EN A 3 Antirrhinum lopesianum SCROPHULARIACEAE EN A 3 Linaria hellenica SCROPHULARIACEAE EN A 3 Astragalus setosulus FABACEAE VU A 2 1 Genista benehoavensis FABACEAE VU A 2 1 Genista tetragona FABACEAE VU A 2 1 Medicago glandulosa FABACEAE VU A 2 1 Medicago kotovii FABACEAE VU A 2 1 56
Canariothamnus hermosae¹ ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Centaurea gadorensis ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Centaurea immanuelis-loewii ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Centaurea kalambakensis ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Centaurea pulvinata ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Crepis purpurea ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Lactuca singularis ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Lactuca tetrantha ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Senecio caespitosus ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2 Senecio nevadensis ASTERACEAE VU A 2 2
A Tephroseris longifolia ssp. moravica ASTERACEAE VU 2 2 Galium cracoviense RUBIACEAE VU A 2 4 Euphorbia bourgeana¹ EUPHORBIACEAE VU A 2 5 Anacamptis boryi ORCHIDACEAE VU A 2 8 Cephalanthera epipactoides ORCHIDACEAE VU A 2 8 Ophrys argolica ORCHIDACEAE VU A 2 8 Platanthera obtusata ORCHIDACEAE VU A 2 8
A Platanthera obtusata ssp. oligantha ORCHIDACEAE VU 2 8 Asphodelus bento-rainhae APOCYNACEAE VU A 2 15 Asyneuma giganteum CAMPANULACEAE VU A 2 17 Avenula hackelii POACEAE VU A 2 28 Puccinellia pungens POACEAE VU A 2 28 Beta adanensis AMARANTACEAE VU A 3 Microcnemum coralloides AMARANTACEAE VU A 3 Salicornia veneta AMARANTACEAE VU A 3 Allium exaltatum AMARYLLIDACEAE VU A 3
57
Allium pardoi AMARYLLIDACEAE VU A 3 Bupleurum capillare APIACEAE VU A 3 Thorella verticillato-inundata APIACEAE VU A 3 Symphytum cycladense BORAGINACEAE VU A 3 Iberis runemarkii¹ BRASSICACEAE VU A 3 Cerastium dinaricum CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU A 3 Moehringia hypanica CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU A 3 Petrocoptis pseudoviscosa CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU A 3 Cyperus cyprius CYPERACEAE VU A 3 Crocus hartmannianus IRIDACEAE VU A 3 Pinguicula mundi LENTIBULARIACEAE VU A 3 Papaver laestadianum PAPAVERACEAE VU A 3 Anagallis crassifolia PRIMULACEAE VU A 3 Euphrasia marchesettii SCROPHULARIACEAE VU A 3 Linaria pseudolaxiflora SCROPHULARIACEAE VU A 3 Vicia bifoliolata FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Medicago citrina FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Medicago fischeriana FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Teline salsoloides FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Astragalus verrucosus FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Astragalus maritimus FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Cytisus aeolicus FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Lotus pyranthus FABACEAE CR B 2 1 Anthemis glaberrima ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Sonchus gandogeri ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Cheirolophus crassifolius¹ ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Cheirolophus metlesicsii ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Helichrysum melitense ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 58
Hypochaeris oligocephala ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Onopordum carduelium ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Pericallis hadrosoma ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Centaurea heldreichii¹ ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Onopordum nogalesii ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Pericallis malvifolia ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Andryala crithmifolia ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Tanacetum oshanahanii ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Argyranthemum winteri ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Centaurea akamantis ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Cheirolophus duranii ASTERACEAE CR B 2 2 Goodyera macrophylla ORCHIDACEAE CR B 2 8 Pyrus magyarica ROSACEAE CR B 2 25 Patellifolia webbiana AMARANTACEAE CR B 3 Cremnophyton lanfrancoi AMARANTACEAE CR B 3 Allium corsicum AMARYLLIDACEAE CR B 3 Bupleurum kakiskalae APIACEAE CR B 3 Apium bermejoi APIACEAE CR B 3 Monizia edulis APIACEAE CR B 3 Diplotaxis vicentina BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Erucastrum palustre BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Crambe sventenii BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Diplotaxis siettiana BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Arabis kennedyae BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Brassica macrocarpa BRASSICACEAE CR B 3 Callitriche pulchra CALLITRICHACEAE CR B 3 Dianthus morisianus CARYOPHYLLACEAE CR B 3 Silene nocteolens CARYOPHYLLACEAE CR B 3
59
Arenaria nevadensis CARYOPHYLLACEAE CR B 3 Convolvulus argyrothamnos CONVOLVULACEAE CR B 3 Aichryson dumosum CRASSULACEAE CR B 3 Borderea chouardii DIOSCOREACEAE CR B 3 Erodium astragaloides GERANIACEAE CR B 3 Globularia ascanii GLOBULARIACEAE CR B 3 Ribes sardoum GROSSULARIACEAE CR B 3 Sideritis cystosiphon LAMIACEAE CR B 3 Sideritis marmorea LAMIACEAE CR B 3 Micromeria glomerata LAMIACEAE CR B 3 Teucrium abutiloides LAMIACEAE CR B 3 Myrica rivas-martinezii MYRICACEAE CR B 3 Plantago almogravensis PLANTAGINACEAE CR B 3 Armeria helodes PLUMBAGINACEAE CR B 3 Limonium dendroides PLUMBAGINACEAE CR B 3 Limonium spectabile PLUMBAGINACEAE CR B 3 Armeria berlengensis PLUMBAGINACEAE CR B 3 Odontites granatensis SCROPHULARIACEAE CR B 3 Primula egaliksensis PRIMULACEAE CR (PE) B 3 Astragalus physocalyx FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Cicer canariense FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Lotus callis-viridis FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Medicago cretacea FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Medicago saxatilis FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Vicia capreolata FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Lathyrus cassius FABACEAE EN B 2 1 Argyranthemum lidii ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Aster sorrentinii ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 60
Atractylis arbuscula ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Cheirolophus ghomerythus ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2
B Crepis tectorum ssp. nigrescens ASTERACEAE EN 2 2 Picris willkommii ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2
B Senecio lagascanus ssp. lusitanicus ASTERACEAE EN 2 2 Sventenia bupleuroides ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2
B Argyranthemum thalassophilum ASTERACEAE EN 2 2 Centaurea horrida ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Stemmacantha cynaroides ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Tolpis glabrescens ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Atractylis preauxiana ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Carlina diae ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Cheirolophus massonianus ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Helichrysum monogynum ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Lactuca watsoniana ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Cheirolophus falcisectus ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Erigeron frigidus ASTERACEAE EN B 2 2 Galium viridiflorum RUBIACEAE EN B 2 4 Epipactis greuteri ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Epipactis placentina ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Epipactis tallosii ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Orchis sitiaca ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Epipactis veratrifolia ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Platanthera micrantha ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 Steveniella satyrioides ORCHIDACEAE EN B 2 8 61
Prunus lusitanica ssp. azorica ROSACEAE EN B 2 25 Agropyron cimmericum POACEAE EN B 2 28 Agropyron dasyanthum POACEAE EN B 2 28 Stipa veneta POACEAE EN B 2 28 Avena murphyi POACEAE EN B 2 28 Beta macrocarpa AMARANTACEAE EN B 3 Narcissus nevadensis AMARYLLIDACEAE EN B 3 Narcissus longispathus AMARYLLIDACEAE EN B 3 Eryngium viviparum APIACEAE EN B 3 Ferula sadleriana APIACEAE EN B 3 Asparagus nesiotes ASPARAGACEAE EN B 3 Lithodora nitida BORAGINACEAE EN B 3 Anchusa crispa BORAGINACEAE EN B 3 Brassica hilarionis BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Cochlearia polonica BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Coincya rupestris BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Crambe microcarpa BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Crambe scoparia BRASSICACEAE EN B 3
B Sinapidendron sempervivifolium BRASSICACEAE EN 3 Crambe pritzelii BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Sinapidendron frutescens BRASSICACEAE EN B 3 Dianthus diutinus CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN B 3 Gypsophila papillosa CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN B 3 Silene holzmannii CARYOPHYLLACEAE EN B 3 Cistus chinamadensis CISTACEAE EN B 3 Tuberaria major CISTACEAE EN B 3 Erodium paularense GERANIACEAE EN B 3
62
Leopoldia gussonei¹ HYACINTHACEAE EN B 3 Bellevalia webbiana HYACINTHACEAE EN B 3
B Herniaria latifolia ssp. litardierei ILLECEBRACEAE EN 3 Isoetes boryana ISOETACEAE EN B 3 Micromeria taygetea LAMIACEAE EN B 3 Teucrium lepicephalum LAMIACEAE EN B 3 Tulipa cypria LILIACEAE EN B 3 Lythrum thesioides LYTHRACEAE EN B 3 Marsilea batardae MARSILEACEAE EN B 3 Pilularia minuta MARSILEACEAE EN B 3 Paeonia parnassica PAEONIACEAE EN B 3 Plantago algarbiensis PLANTAGINACEAE EN B 3 Limonium preauxii PLUMBAGINACEAE EN B 3 Armeria soleirolii PLUMBAGINACEAE EN B 3 Anemone uralensis RANUNCULACEAE EN B 3
B Aquilegia pyrenaica ssp. cazorlensis RANUNCULACEAE EN 3 Ruta microcarpa RUTACEAE EN B 3 Saxifraga presolanensis SAXIFRAGACEAE EN B 3
Chaenorhinum serpyllifolium ssp. B lusitanicum SCROPHULARIACEAE EN 3 Linaria tonzigii SCROPHULARIACEAE EN B 3 Atropa baetica SOLANACEAE EN B 3 Daphne sophia THYMELAEACEAE EN B 3 Astragalus tanaiticus FABACEAE VU B 2 1 Carthamus balearicus¹ ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 63
B Centaurea attica ssp. Megarensis ASTERACEAE VU 2 2 Centaurea dubjanskyi ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Centaurea niederi ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Centaurea peucedanifolia ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Cheirolophus satarataensis ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Leontodon microcephalus ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Helichrysum gossypinum ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Centaurea corymbosa ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Centaurea jankae ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Cheirolophus tagananensis ASTERACEAE VU B 2 2 Galium sudeticum RUBIACEAE VU B 2 4 Epipactis pontica ORCHIDACEAE VU B 2 8 Orchis punctulata ORCHIDACEAE VU B 2 8 Dactylorhiza iberica ORCHIDACEAE VU B 2 8 Epipactis nordeniorum ORCHIDACEAE VU B 2 8 Kosteletzkya pentacarpa MALVACEAE VU B 2 14 Vincetoxicum pannonicum APOCYNACEAE VU B 2 15 Chamaemeles coriacea ROSACEAE VU B 2 25 Prunus ramburii ROSACEAE VU B 2 25 Festuca brigantina POACEAE VU B 2 28 Stipa bavarica POACEAE VU B 2 28 Aegilops bicornis POACEAE VU B 2 28 Phalaris maderensis POACEAE VU B 2 28 Alisma wahlenbergii ALISMATACEAE VU B 3 Damasonium polyspermum ALISMATACEAE VU B 3 Beta nana AMARANTACEAE VU B 3 Allium schmitzii AMARYLLIDACEAE VU B 3 64
Ferula latipinna APIACEAE VU B 3 Asparagus pastorianus ASPARAGACEAE VU B 3 Myosotis azorica BORAGINACEAE VU B 3 Biscutella vincentina BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Brassica glabrescens BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Braya linearis BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Crambe gomerae BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Erysimum pieninicum BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Sisymbrium cavanillesianum BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Isatis platyloba BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Crambe aspera BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Biscutella neustriaca BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Cochlearia tatrae BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Parolinia schizogynoides BRASSICACEAE VU B 3 Petrocoptis grandiflora CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU B 3 Silene hicesiae CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU B 3
B Dianthus cintranus ssp. Cintranus CARYOPHYLLACEAE VU 3 Helianthemum alypoides CISTACEAE VU B 3 Convolvulus fernandesii CONVOLVULACEAE VU B 3 Convolvulus massonii CONVOLVULACEAE VU B 3 Sedum brissemoretii CRASSULACEAE VU B 3 Elatine brochonii ELATINACEAE VU B 3 Centaurium somedanum GENTIANACEAE VU B 3 Gentianella bohemica GENTIANACEAE VU B 3 Erodium rupicola GERANIACEAE VU B 3 Globularia stygia GLOBULARIACEAE VU B 3 Najas flexilis HYDROCHARITACEAE VU B 3
65
Herniaria algarvica ILLECEBRACEAE VU B 3 Crocus cyprius IRIDACEAE VU B 3 Isoetes azorica ISOETACEAE VU B 3 Juncus valvatus JUNCACEAE VU B 3 Sideritis javalambrensis LAMIACEAE VU B 3 Teucrium turredanum LAMIACEAE VU B 3 Origanum cordifolium LAMIACEAE VU B 3 Sideritis cypria LAMIACEAE VU B 3 Lilium rhodopeum LILIACEAE VU B 3 Linum muelleri LINACEAE VU B 3 Armeria sampaioi PLUMBAGINACEAE VU B 3 Primula apennina PRIMULACEAE VU B 3 Ranunculus kykkoensis RANUNCULACEAE VU B 3 Pulsatilla vulgaris ssp. gotlandica RANUNCULACEAE VU B 3 Ranunculus weyleri RANUNCULACEAE VU B 3 Saxifraga berica SAXIFRAGACEAE VU B 3 Saxifraga osloënsis SAXIFRAGACEAE VU B 3 Veronica micrantha SCROPHULARIACEAE VU B 3 Daphne rodriguezii THYMELAEACEAE VU B 3 Viola athois VIOLACEAE VU B 3
66
Appendix table 3. The 111 threatened species of the CUBG living collection, organised in ranking order based on the relative ex-situ conservation value of each species, from highest to lowest.
Infraspecific No. Genus Species Epithet Family Locations Red List Status Group Echium acanthocarpum Boraginaceae 4 CR B Sporobolus caespitosus Poaceae 2 CR B Phaedranassa viridiflora Amaryllidaceae 1 EN B Copiapoa esmeraldana Cactaceae 7 CR C Polystichum drepanum Dryopteridaceae 6 CR C Hibiscadelphus giffardianus Malvaceae 7 CR C Callianthemum kernerianum Ranunculaceae 9 CR C Silene orphanidis Caryophyllaceae 8 EN C Fritillaria obliqua Liliaceae 6 EN C Fritillaria epirotica Liliaceae 8 EN C Fritillaria conica Liliaceae 9 EN C Commidendrum rugosum Asteraceae 7 VU C Impatiens morsei Balsaminaceae 5 VU C Alyssum pyrenaicum Brassicaceae 6 VU C Fritillaria euboeica Liliaceae 5 VU C Hibiscus scottii Malvaceae 7 VU C Pleione pleionoides Orchidaceae 6 VU C Picea farreri Pinaceae 7 VU C Saxifraga portosanctana Saxifragaceae 8 VU C Rhaphithamnus venustus Verbenaceae 5 VU C Munroidendron racemosum Araliaceae 13 CR D Tahina spectabilis Arecaceae 18 CR D
67
Echium handiense Boraginaceae 12 CR D Hibiscadelphus hualalaiensis Malvaceae 11 CR D Hibiscadelphus distans Malvaceae 14 CR D Trochetiopsis ebenus Malvaceae 19 CR D Sorbus leptophylla Rosaceae 11 CR D Sorbus leyana Rosaceae 11 CR D Sorbus wilmottiana Rosaceae 13 CR D Rothmannia annae Rubiaceae 12 CR D Acer buergerianum formosanum Sapindaceae 11 CR D Acis nicaeensis Amaryllidaceae 11 EN D Silene hifacensis Caryophyllaceae 14 EN D Xanthocyparis vietnamensis Cupressaceae 16 EN D Fritillaria rhodocanakis Liliaceae 11 EN D Lebronnecia kokioides Malvaceae ss 15 EN D Abies guatemalensis Pinaceae 15 EN D Leucadendron discolor Proteaceae 18 EN D Arum purpureospathum Araceae 14 VU D Schippia concolor Arecaceae 19 VU D Echium gentianoides Boraginaceae 15 VU D Eriosyce napina Cactaceae 18 VU D Encephalartos barteri Cycadaceae 14 VU D Chordospartium stevensonii Fabaceae 19 VU D Soldanella villosa Primulaceae 17 VU D Sorbus vexans Rosaceae 10 VU D Sorbus eminens Rosaceae 11 VU D Sorbus pseudofennica Rosaceae 16 VU D Euphorbia stygiana Euphorbiaceae 20 CR E Abies nebrodensis Pinaceae 49 CR E
68
Aster pyrenaeus Asteraceae 45 EN E Parmentiera cereifera Bignoniaceae 33 EN E Aeonium gomerense Crassulariaceae 37 EN E Cupressus goveniana Cupressaceae 45 EN E Delonix pumila Fabaceae 20 EN E Larix decidua polonica Pinaceae 33 EN E Malus niedzwetzkyana Rosaceae 26 EN E Sorbus bristoliensis Rosaceae 27 EN E Guaiacum officinale Zygophyllaceae 41 EN E Galanthus reginae-olgae Amaryllidaceae 23 VU E Eryngium variifolium Apiaceae 48 VU E Ferocactus macrodiscus Cactaceae 24 VU E Schlumbergera truncata Cactaceae 41 VU E Aeonium balsamiferum Crassulariaceae 45 VU E Pilgerodendron uviferum Cupressaceae 28 VU E Chamaecyparis obtusa formosana Cupressaceae 31 VU E Athrotaxis selaginoides Cupressaceae 32 VU E Encephalartos gratus Cycadaceae 40 VU E Arbutus canariensis Ericaceae 32 VU E Euphorbia ambovombensis Euphorbiaceae 22 VU E Pleione formosana Orchidaceae 42 VU E Picea morrisonicola Pinaceae 34 VU E Sorbus anglica Rosaceae 27 VU E Araucaria angustifolia Araucariaceae 95 CR F Wollemia nobilis Araucariaceae 107 CR F Geranium maderense Geranium 75 CR F Sarracenia oreophila Sarraceniaceae 50 CR F Sabal bermudana Aceriaceae 50 EN F
69
Araucaria araucana Araucariaceae 176 EN F Echium pininana Boraginaceae 67 EN F Echinocactus grusonii Cactaceae 200 EN F Zamia furfuracea Cycadaceae 127 EN F Cycas circinalis Cycadaceae 136 EN F Ginkgo biloba Ginkgoaceae 370 EN F Swietenia mahagoni Meliaceae 58 EN F Pinus radiata Pinaceae 100 EN F Abies pinsapo Pinaceae 135 EN F Cedrus atlantica Pinaceae 152 EN F Sequoia sempervirens Pinaceae 181 EN F Sequoiadendron giganteum Pinaceae 181 EN F Picea omorika Pinaceae 217 EN F Metasequoia glyptostroboides Pinaceae 338 EN F Dracaena draco Asparagaceae 183 VU F Berberis candidula Berberidaceae 55 VU F Rhipsalis pilocarpa Cactaceae 55 VU F Astrophytum asterias Cactaceae 60 VU F Mammillaria longimamma Cactaceae 80 VU F Lophophora williamsii Cactaceae 85 VU F Torreya californica Cephalotaxaceae 71 VU F Davidia involucrata vilmoriniana Cornaceae 99 VU F Taiwania cryptomerioides Cupressaceae 88 VU F Cupressus macrocarpa Cupressaceae 109 VU F Dionaea muscipula Droseraceae 104 VU F Delonix regia Fabaceae 118 VU F Picea breweriana Pinaceae 96 VU F Picea asperata Pinaceae 108 VU F
70
Cedrus libani Pinaceae 166 VU F Prumnopitys andina Podocarpaceae 62 VU F Salix magnifica Salicaceae 54 VU F Sarracenia leucophylla Sarraceniaceae 85 VU F Stangeria eriopus Stangeriaceae 83 VU F