2015 Spiliotis.Pdf (1.987Mb)

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.

Load more