Conserving planning as a tool for conservation implementation

Nigel Maxted, Joana Magos Brehm and Shelagh Kell

1st Mediterranean Conservation Week “Building a regional network to conserve and cultural diversity” Ulcinj () – 24-29 October 2016 ECPGR Wild Species Conservation WG

Major achievements: • Raising professional and public awareness

• Specific projects • PGR Forum • AEGRO • PGR Secure

• Publication of methodologies • Concept (and background document): ECPGR Concept for In situ Conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe • Establishment of a community of experts Policy context

▪ CBD Strategic Plan agreed in Nagoya (2010) – Target 13 of 20

"Target 13. By 2020, The status of crop and livestock genetic diversity in agricultural ecosystems and of wild relatives has been improved. (SMART target to be developed at global and national levels) …. In addition, in situ conservation of wild relatives of crop plants could be improved inside and outside protected areas."

▪ CBD Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011 – 2020 (2010) – Target 9 of 16

Target 9: 70 per cent of the genetic diversity of crops including their wild relatives and other socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, while respecting, preserving and maintaining associated indigenous and local knowledge.

UN Millennium Development Goals highlighted the need of eradicatingAllium ampeloprasum var. babingtonii extreme poverty and hunger = linked conservation and use of CWR What are crop wild relatives?

▪ Crop wild relatives (CWR) are wild plant species closely related to crops, including wild ancestors ▪ They have an indirect use as gene donors for crop improvement due to their relatively close genetic relationship to crops ▪ They are an important socio-economic resource that offer novel genetic diversity required to maintain future food security

Narrow definition: Broad definition: A crop wild relative is a wild plant taxon that CWR = all taxa within has an indirect use derived from its relatively the same genus as a close genetic relationship to a crop; this crop relationship is defined in terms of the CWR belonging to gene pools 1 or 2, or taxon groups 1 to 4 of the crop Value of CWR: as a source of adaptive traitsAegilops speltoides (B-genome ) CWR Trait Aegilops tauschii Rust Ae. tauschii Sprouting suppression Ae. tauschii Wheat soil-borne mosaic virus, wheat spindle-streak mosaic virus Ae. tauschii Agronomic traits, yield improvement Ae. tauschii, T. turgidum Yellow rust and leaf rust Ae. tauschii, T. turgidum Water-logging tolerance Ae. variabilis Powdery mildew resistance Ae. variabilis Root-knot nematode resistance Ae. ventricosa Cyst nematode resistance Ae. ventricosa Eye spot resistance Agropyron elongatum, Ae. Leaf and stem rust resistance umbellulata Wheat Ag. elongatum Drought tolerance Agropyron sp. Frost resistance Secale cereale Yield improvement Triticum dicoccoides, T. Fusarium head blight timopheevii, T. monococcum, Ae. speltoides T. monococcum Stem rust T. turgidum subsp. dicoccoides Protein quality improvement T. turgidum subsp. dicoccoides Powdery mildew T. turgidum subsp. dicoccoides Stem rust T. u r a r t u Powdery mildew Thinopyrum bessarabicum Salt resistance Th. intermedium, Th. ponticum Barley yellow dwarf virus, wheat streak mosaic virus Th. ponticum Fusarium head blight resistance Thinopyrum sp. Greenbug resistance $115 billion toward increased crop yields per year (Pimentel et al., 1997) Why crop wild relatives? CWR are threatened and poorly conserved

▪ Red List assessments of 572 native European CWR in 25 Annex I priority crop gene pools - 16% of the species assessed are threatened or Near Threatened and 4% are Critically Endangered ▪ Yet analysis of European PGR ex situ collections found: - CWR taxa represent only 10% of total germplasm accessions and only 6% European CWR have any germplasm in gene banks

▪ Many CWR are found in existing protected areas, but they are not being actively monitored and managed

▪ Only a handful of CWR active genetic reserves have been established: Triticum CWR in ; Zea perennis in Mexico; Solanum CWR in Peru; wild Coffee CWR in Ethiopia; and Beta patula in Holistic Integration and Geographic Scale

Integration + Scale • Conservation • Individual • Local • Linked to • National • Regional • Use • Global

Motherhood +

Integrating European and National CWR Conservation CWR Populations

Basic geographic scope: • Individual site (= populations)

• National network

• Regional network Bottom-up / inclusive / • Global network decentralized / Holistic approach to conservation locally owned National CWR Strategy

Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima

Sugarbeet

Maxted et al., 2007 UK Priority CWR – Inventories

CWR Checklist 2,109 taxa (44% • England, Scotland, Wales and the UK flora) • Involvement of stakeholders

• Selection of criteria: Prioritisation o Use of related crop o Native status o Economic value of crop o Gene pool/taxon group CWR Inventory o Red list threat status 223 taxa o Conservation designation

Fielder et al., 2015 UK Priority CWR – Inventories

Wild asparagus, Asparagus prostratus Least lettuce, Lactuca saligna Table 1 Summary of inventory of 223 priority CWR in UK (N = Native, A = Archaeophyte, Neo = Sea beet, Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima Neophyte) No. of infra- Family No. of genera No. of species Native status specific taxa Alliaceae 1 10 3 N; Neo Amaranthaceae 3 13 1 N; A; Neo Apiaceae 3 2 4 N Asparagaceae 1 2 N; Neo Asteraceae 2 5 N; A; Neo Betulaceae 1 2 N; Neo 8 10 5 N; A; Neo Ericaceae 1 6 N; Neo Fabaceae 8 59 8 N; A; Neo Fagaceae 1 1 Neo Geraniaceae 1 3 N; A Grossulariaceae 1 8 N; Neo Juglandaceae 1 1 Neo Linaceae 1 2 1 N Moraceae 2 2 Neo Poaceae 20 39 9 N; A; Neo Rosaceae 6 27 N; Neo Sea Carrot, Daucus carota subsp. Tot als 61 192 31 gummifer Fielder et al., 2015 Gap analysis of priority plant species

Comparison of natural in situ plant diversity with diversity sampled and conserved in situ or ex situ (Maxted et al., 2008; Ramírez-Villegas et al. 2010) Step 1: Circumscription of target taxon and target area Step 2: Natural in situ diversity 2a - Taxonomic diversity assessment 2b - Genetic diversity assessment 2c - Ecogeographic diversity assessment 2d - Threat assessment Step 3: Current conservation 3a - In situ techniques Sea pea, Lathyrus japonicus subsp. maritimus 3b - Ex situ techniques Step 4: Setting priorities for future conservation action 4a - In situ conservation priorities 4b - Ex situ conservation priorities UK Priority CWR – In situ gap

analysisWhere should we establish genetic reserves for in situ conservation?

Site 2: Cambridgeshire Site 3: 17 (104) taxa Ceredigion 11 (99) taxa

Site 1: Purbeck 124 (0) taxa Hannah Fielder with Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima

Fielder et al., 2015 CWR complementarity analysis for the UK UK Priority CWR – Where should we be sampling further CWR populations for ex Ex situ gap situ conservation? analysis ▪ Gene bank review found 1,034 accessions for 146 of 223 priority CWR ▪ Millennium Seed Bank, RBG Kew; University of Warwick Genetic Resources Unit and the Genetic Resources Unit (IBERS) at Aberystwyth University in Wales

▪ Only two CWR taxa had > 50 stored accessions (perennial rye grass Lolium perenne L. (338) and white clover Trifolium repens L. (65) ▪ Both are important UK forage species

▪ Of the 77 taxa with no stored accessions, 53 are introduced taxa (archaeophytes and neophytes)

▪ Perennial rye grass Lolium perenne, white clover Trifolium repens and Plymouth pear P. cordata is the only taxon well represented in ex situ collections Plymouth Pear Pyrus cordata

Fielder et al., 2015 Towards the first UK genetic reserve for CWR on the Lizard, Cornwall Why the concentration of CWR on the Lizard?

• Warm climate

• Complex geology

• Range of soil types

• Microclimatic variation

• Varied land use pattern Lizard Point, Cornwall

• The Lizard already Fielder et al., 2015 has NNR, SSSI, SAC, Towards the first UK genetic reserve for CWR on the Lizard, The Lizard NNR in Cornwall SW Cornwall England: survey of CWRs Spring 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 • Allium schoenoprasum • Allium ursinum • Asparagus officinalis subsp. prostratus • Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima • Daucus carota subsp. gummifer • raphanistrum subsp. maritimus • Trifolium occidentale Hopkins & Maxted 2010 • Trifolium repens

Progress in Europe: , , , , , Czech Rep., , , , , , , , and

Progress in outside Europe: , Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan, Middle East, O Mexico, Peru, India Towards the first UK genetic reserve for CWR on the Lizard, CornwallManagement implications – Wild chives genetic diversity

• Inland and coastal Traboe Cross sites

Clahar Water • Routine monitoring

• Cattle grazing

Wild chives, Allium schoenoprasum Soapy Cove • Controlled burning of Kynance Cliffs heath

Conservation management and monitoring of diverse CWR populations needs to be formally incorporated into the management of the designated ‘protected areas’ (e.g. SSSIs, SACs, NNRs, etc.), as well as informal protected locations Future UK based CWR policy and research

• Formal recognition of genetic reserve status in the UK

• Establish a genetic reserve network across UK (Purbeck next?)

• Ensure genetic diversity stored ex situ for CWR in genetic reserves

• Model future climate change to inform and adjust CWR management plans

• CWR diversity recognised as key ‘features of special interest’ within the selection and management criteria for SSSIs/SACs/NNRs etc. Wild , Raphanus raphanistrum

• CWR diversity incorporated as core elements of all EU co-financed Rural Development Programmes and Agri-environment schemes Take home messages

▪ Wild plants have significant value for food security and human, but also are underutilized and threatened

▪ Increased national attention to plant conservation

▪ Wild plants need to be fully recognised as key parts of our ‘Plant/Botanical Heritage’

▪ To achieve goal will require collaboration ▪ In situ genetic reserves established (Biodiversity + agrobiodiversity) ▪ Ex situ gaps filled ▪ Place national efforts in the regional and global context

▪ For in situ conservation need European decentralized network ▪ Identify existing Governing Body to host Secretariat to facilitate the work of the network. ▪ Find budget for establishment and operation

▪ Re-visit conservation action to better serve actual and potential users CWR European Diversity CWR European In Situ Priorities CWR European Ex Situ Priorities