New Zealand's Genetic Diversity
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1.13 NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC DIVERSITY NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC DIVERSITY Dennis P. Gordon National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Private Bag 14901, Kilbirnie, Wellington 6022, New Zealand ABSTRACT: The known genetic diversity represented by the New Zealand biota is reviewed and summarised, largely based on a recently published New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. All kingdoms and eukaryote phyla are covered, updated to refl ect the latest phylogenetic view of Eukaryota. The total known biota comprises a nominal 57 406 species (c. 48 640 described). Subtraction of the 4889 naturalised-alien species gives a biota of 52 517 native species. A minimum (the status of a number of the unnamed species is uncertain) of 27 380 (52%) of these species are endemic (cf. 26% for Fungi, 38% for all marine species, 46% for marine Animalia, 68% for all Animalia, 78% for vascular plants and 91% for terrestrial Animalia). In passing, examples are given both of the roles of the major taxa in providing ecosystem services and of the use of genetic resources in the New Zealand economy. Key words: Animalia, Chromista, freshwater, Fungi, genetic diversity, marine, New Zealand, Prokaryota, Protozoa, terrestrial. INTRODUCTION Article 10b of the CBD calls for signatories to ‘Adopt The original brief for this chapter was to review New Zealand’s measures relating to the use of biological resources [i.e. genetic genetic resources. The OECD defi nition of genetic resources resources] to avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological is ‘genetic material of plants, animals or micro-organisms of diversity [e.g. genetic diversity]’ (my parentheses). An inventory value as a resource for future generations of humanity’ (UN or stocktaking of indigenous genetic diversity can aid the identi- 1997). This is derived from Article 2 of the 1992 Convention on fi cation of potential genetic resources, guided to a considerable Biological Diversity (CBD), which defi nes genetic resources as extent by previous discovery, identifi cation, and utilisation of ‘genetic material of actual or potential value’, and Article 1 of the such resources. Accordingly, since the focus of this volume is the Andean Decision 391 defi nes ‘genetic resources’ broadly as ‘all services provided by indigenous and man-modifi ed (e.g. agricul- biological material that contains genetic information of value or tural) ecosystems in New Zealand, this chapter reviews what is of real or potential value’ (WIPO 2010). The term ‘resources’ is known of New Zealand’s total indigenous and naturalised-alien conceptually linked to the notion of benefi t to humanity (Frankel genetic diversity, which includes, in the language of the CBD, and Soulé 1992, p. 241), and since the CBD is also concerned ‘genetic material of actual or potential value’. This diversity with access and benefi t-sharing, the precise meaning of ‘genetic excludes domesticated, zoo and aquarium animals (unless feral) resources’ has been subject to discussion and debate in the light and the many thousands of horticultural species, varieties and of new technologies, new scientifi c knowledge and bioeconomic cultivars, which are dealt with in other chapters. developments (e.g. genomics, proteomics and synthetic biology) Pre-European Māori were the fi rst to scope New Zealand’s (Schei and Tvedt 2010). genetic diversity and genetic resources, through collecting and Allem (2000) argued that, since keystone species carry naming, and through trial and error and the passing-on of discov- ecological value that could affect economic activity, they should eries and learned knowledge, which continued beyond European be upgraded to become a genetic resource. Allem also noted how, introductions of foreign species; for example, they almost in the language of the CBD and derivative documents, genetic certainly developed a range of new potato cultivars, by selec- resources were taken to be a subset of ‘biological resources’; tion from seedlings and from somatic mutations, of introduced Article 2 states ‘“Biological resources” includes genetic cultivars (Harris 2001, 2005). Formal systematic documentation resources, organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other of New Zealand’s fl ora and fauna, including marine, began with biotic component of ecosystems with actual or potential use Cook’s fi rst voyage in 1769. Cook’s second voyage (1773–74), or value for humanity.’ He pointed out that the two terms had, and those of Louis Duperry and Dumont D’Urville in 1824, even by 2000, overlapped considerably in use and application 1827 and 1840, also yielded a useful quantity of specimens and and argued that they should be treated synonymously, and, since data for overseas scientifi c study. With the founding of several ‘genetic resources’ has been a long-established term (since the scientifi c societies, provincial museums, and university colleges early 1960s), the principle of priority should be observed, with during the second half of the 19th century, a remarkably advanced ‘biological resources’ being redundant in this context. infrastructure for the indigenous documentation of the biota was The semantic looseness of terminology used in the otherwise established, with a mostly amateur scientifi c base. The fi rst major legal context of the CBD (a continuing problem acknowledged fl oras published by indigenes, based on their own and previous by Schei and Tvedt (2010)) moved Allem to argue for precision: work, appeared around and just after the turn of the century (Kirk ‘For instance, while fl ying over a humid forest it seems normal 1899; Cheeseman 1906) and Hutton (1904) published a complete to refer to biological resources lying down there. But this is a index of the known fauna. In the spirit of these works from a manner of speaking. In other words, in order to know what lies century earlier, and arising out of CBD-related imperatives like down there, one must get closer and then either genetic resources the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and the Species 2000/ or biodiversity will emerge from the previous anonymity ... ITIS Catalogue of Life, a project was launched in early 2000 to Wild cassava and wild potatoes remain biological diversity until review and inventory New Zealand’s total Phanerozoic biodi- man fi nds some economic or scientifi c use for them. Then, they versity (Gordon 2002). Involving 238 taxonomic experts in 19 become a genetic resource … A resource is ‘something to which countries, the project was completed in 2012 with the publication one can turn for help or support or to achieve one’s purpose’ of the third of a trilogy of volumes (Gordon 2009, 2010, 2012a). (Oxford Dictionary)’ (Allem 2000). The comprehensive data in the chapters, checklists and tables 162 Gordon DP 2013. New Zealand’s genetic diversity. In Dymond JR ed. Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC DIVERSITY 1.13 in these volumes, as well as in papers published subsequently, the most recent factor shaping New Zealand’s genetic diversity. are the main source of information for this chapter. A report on New Zealand’s biological resources prepared for the former PROKARYOTES Ministry of Economic Development that was based on data used Overview for the biodiversity trilogy (Sim-Smith et al. 2005) has also been Globally, there are about 11 400 accepted species of prokary- consulted. otes (Euzéby 2013). In New Zealand, there were 671 named bacterial species (Table 1) as of the end of 2011. This fi gure THE GEOGRAPHIC BASIS FOR NEW ZEALAND’S GENETIC includes cyanobacteria (‘blue-green algae’), archaebacteria DIVERSITY (archaea) and all other bacteria (eubacteria) (Young et al. 2012; New Zealand is a geographically isolated archipelago Broady and Merican 2012; and additional archaebacteria refer- comprising two major islands and more than 700 offshore islands ences in the present chapter). The New Zealand checklist of and islets. Its western coast is 1600–2250 kilometres from cultured bacteria published by Young et al. (2012) includes only Australia; it has a land and freshwater area of 268 680 square those species for which there is at least one reference strain held in kilometres (larger than the United Kingdom), and an Exclusive a public culture collection. Although additional bacterial species Economic Zone (EEZ) of almost 4.2 million square kilome- have been recorded as present in New Zealand, the accuracy of tres that spans 30 degrees of latitude and exceeds 15 times the earlier reports is uncertain. Environmental genetic screening has land area. Collectively, the mainland and smaller islands of determined a much greater level of prokaryotic diversity than is New Zealand are the visible surface of a large submerged conti- evidenced in the formal list of published names. This is because nental mass that extends beyond the boundaries of the EEZ. This studies have not yet been made of the many bacteria that can be landmass, geologically known as Zealandia, extends from New isolated from particular environmental sites. Estimates are that Caledonia’s Chesterfi eld Plateau (about 19° S) in the north-west 1–10% of the major bacterial groups have been cultivated and and the Colville and Kermadec ridges in the north-east to south of characterised and there exist major groups for which no members New Zealand’s subantarctic islands at about 56° S. The combined have been cultured. At present it is not clear why the ‘yet to be seafl oor area of the plateaus and ridges is about 6 million square cultivated’ (YBC) bacteria cannot be grown in pure culture. kilometres; the emergent land is only about 7% of the area of Explanations involve interdependencies of bacteria in communi- continental crust represented by Zealandia (Campbell et al. 2008). ties and the role of organic and inorganic surfaces as necessary The New Zealand region comprises a Large Marine Ecosystem for bacterial activity.