plant genetic resource gap analysis: targeting cwr for in situ and ex situ conservation

Plant Genetic Resource Plant Genetic Resource Gap Analysis: targeting Gap Analysis: targeting CWR for CWR for in situin situ and and ex ex

situsitu conservation conservation

Nigel MaxtedNigel Maxted

DRAFT THOUGHTSDRAFT THOUGHTS

Talk ObjectivesTalk Objectives Need to improve conservation Need to improve conservation

through better prioritisationthrough better prioritisation

What is ‘Gap Analysis’ and how to What is ‘Gap Analysis’ and how to apply for PGR?apply for PGR?

Proposed methodology for Proposed methodology for discussiondiscussion

Exemplar: Cowpea and its relative Exemplar: Cowpea and its relative ((VignaVigna Savi) in Africa Savi) in Africa

The need for increased The need for increased efficiency of conversationefficiency of conversation

““Develop, where necessary, guidelines Develop, where necessary, guidelines for the selection, establishment and for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas or management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological be taken to conserve biological diversity.”diversity.”

Article 8 - CBDArticle 8 - CBD (UNCED, 1992) (UNCED, 1992)

What is ‘gap analysis’?What is ‘gap analysis’? So called ‘Gap analysis’ was initially So called ‘Gap analysis’ was initially

associated with Margules associated with Margules et al.et al. as a as a conservation evaluation technique conservation evaluation technique

To identifies areas in which selected To identifies areas in which selected elements of biodiversity are represented then elements of biodiversity are represented then by comparison with protected areas identify by comparison with protected areas identify under-represented areas or gaps (Margules, under-represented areas or gaps (Margules, 1989) 1989)

Largely applied to indigenous forests Largely applied to indigenous forests particularly on small islands rich in endemic particularly on small islands rich in endemic species species

Goal of Plant Genetic Goal of Plant Genetic ConservationConservation

““95% of all the alleles at a random locus occurring 95% of all the alleles at a random locus occurring in the target population with a frequency greater in the target population with a frequency greater than 0.05” Marshall and Brown (1975) than 0.05” Marshall and Brown (1975)

Equates to approx. 50 sites x 100 plant collections Equates to approx. 50 sites x 100 plant collections or 5,000 individuals in a genetic reserveor 5,000 individuals in a genetic reserve

Post-CBD add “using a range of conservation Post-CBD add “using a range of conservation techniques”, which takes account of techniques”, which takes account of complementary conservationcomplementary conservation

Has this goal been Has this goal been achieved?achieved?

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Wheat

Barley

Rice

Maize

Phaseolus

Soybean

Sorghum

Brassica

Cowpea

Groundnut

Tomato

Chickpea

Cotton

Sweet potato

Potato

Faba bean

Cassava

Rubber

Lentil

Garlic/onion

Sugarbeet

Sugar cane

Oil-palm

Coffee

Yam

Banana/plantain

Cocoa beans

Taro

Coconut

Number of Accessions (x 1,000)

FAO (1998)

Is Is ex situex situ / / in situin situ conservation conservation working effectively?working effectively?

PGRPGR ex situ ex situ NO, except for major crops! NO, except for major crops!

FAO figures for gene bank holdings show that for minor FAO figures for gene bank holdings show that for minor crops few species meet needs but some are over crops few species meet needs but some are over collectedcollected

PGRPGR in situ in situ NO! NO!

Heywood review of genetic reserves approx 10 genetic Heywood review of genetic reserves approx 10 genetic reserves for all cropsreserves for all crops

On-farm projects possibly 10-20 project and all lack On-farm projects possibly 10-20 project and all lack consistency of funding – no sustainabilityconsistency of funding – no sustainability

Traditional gap analysis techniques may be adapted to Traditional gap analysis techniques may be adapted to use in the PGR contextuse in the PGR context

Gap Analysis MethodologyGap Analysis Methodology Burley (1988) identified four steps in Burley (1988) identified four steps in

traditional gap analysis: traditional gap analysis:

1.1. identify and classify biodiversityidentify and classify biodiversity

2.2. locate areas managed primarily for biodiversitylocate areas managed primarily for biodiversity

3.3. identify biodiversity that is underrepresented in identify biodiversity that is underrepresented in those managed areas, and those managed areas, and

4.4. set priorities for conservation action. set priorities for conservation action.

Still applied to ecosystem conservation, can Still applied to ecosystem conservation, can we adapt for plant genetic conservationwe adapt for plant genetic conservation

Adaptation of Gap Analysis for Adaptation of Gap Analysis for PGR ConservationPGR Conservation

Not just dealing with ecosystem Not just dealing with ecosystem conservation in protected areasconservation in protected areas

Conserving genetic as well as taxonomic Conserving genetic as well as taxonomic diversitydiversity

Complementary conservation, two Complementary conservation, two strategies (strategies (in situin situ and and ex situex situ) and a range ) and a range of techniques for eachof techniques for each

Linking conservation to utilisationLinking conservation to utilisation

PGR Gap Analysis PGR Gap Analysis MethodologyMethodology Essentially PGR gap analysis involves: Essentially PGR gap analysis involves:

– Comparison of range of diversity with Comparison of range of diversity with

– Conserved sample of that range of diversityConserved sample of that range of diversity

– The ‘analysis’ comes in the comparisonThe ‘analysis’ comes in the comparison

– Does the sample provide a efficient representation Does the sample provide a efficient representation of the range of diversity?of the range of diversity?

– The diversity not represented in the sample is the The diversity not represented in the sample is the gap!gap!

PGR Gap Analysis PGR Gap Analysis MethodologyMethodologyIn the PGR context implies a series of steps: In the PGR context implies a series of steps:

Step 1:Step 1:Circumscription of target taxon and target area Circumscription of target taxon and target area

Step 2: Step 2: Assessment of natural Assessment of natural in situin situ diversity diversity 2a - Taxonomic Diversity Assessment 2a - Taxonomic Diversity Assessment 2b -2b - Genetic Diversity Assessment Genetic Diversity Assessment 2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment 2d - Threat Assessment 2d - Threat Assessment

Step 3:Step 3:Assessment of current conservation strategies Assessment of current conservation strategies 3a 3a - - In situIn situ techniques techniques 3b - 3b - Ex situEx situ techniques techniques

Step 4: Step 4: Setting priorities for conservation action Setting priorities for conservation action 4a - 4a - In situIn situ conservation priorities conservation priorities 4b - 4b - Ex situEx situ conservation priorities conservation priorities

When to apply PGR GA?When to apply PGR GA?

Once target taxon selected?Once target taxon selected?

As part of ecogeographic study?As part of ecogeographic study?

Before application of conservation Before application of conservation strategy?strategy?

When reviewing conservation strategy?When reviewing conservation strategy?

Step 1:Step 1:Circumscription of Circumscription of target taxon and target areatarget taxon and target area

Defined by Defined by project commission for project commission for conservation actionconservation action

– Breadth of target taxonBreadth of target taxon

– Breadth of target area Breadth of target area

Step 2: Step 2: Assessment of natural Assessment of natural in in situsitu diversity – 2a Taxonomic diversity – 2a Taxonomic

DiversityDiversity Need to select a classificationNeed to select a classification

– List of accepted taxaList of accepted taxa– Descriptive dataDescriptive data– Distributional dataDistributional data

How to find the appropriate classificationHow to find the appropriate classification– Specialist publications Specialist publications – Taxon experts Taxon experts – Various media searches (International Legume Various media searches (International Legume

Database and Information Service (Database and Information Service (http://http://www.ildis.orgwww.ildis.org//) or Species 2000 () or Species 2000 (http://www.sp2000.org/http://www.sp2000.org/))

2a Taxonomic Diversity: 2a Taxonomic Diversity: VignaVigna

Classification of African Classification of African VignaVigna

– MarMarchal chal et al.et al. (1978) + subsequently (1978) + subsequently described taxadescribed taxa

– Pasquet (2001) conception of Pasquet (2001) conception of V. unguiculataV. unguiculata

– Tomooka Tomooka et al.et al. (2002) conception of subgenus (2002) conception of subgenus CeratotropisCeratotropis. .

– 61 species and 56 subspecific taxa for Africa61 species and 56 subspecific taxa for Africa

2b -2b - Genetic Diversity Genetic Diversity AssessmentAssessment

Need to understand patterns of Need to understand patterns of genetic diversity for target taxagenetic diversity for target taxa

– Is it correlated with ecogeography or Is it correlated with ecogeography or not?not?

Comparison of Genetic Comparison of Genetic diversity with Ecogeographydiversity with Ecogeography

UK study of UK study of UK native plant species: UK native plant species: Beta vulgaris Beta vulgaris subsp.subsp. maritima maritima (L.) Arcang., (L.) Arcang., Brassica rapaBrassica rapa L., L., Calluna vulgarisCalluna vulgaris (L.) Hull, (L.) Hull, Chamaemelum nobile Chamaemelum nobile (L.) (L.) All. and All. and Trifolium repensTrifolium repens L. L.

Correlated - Correlated - Chamaemelum nobileChamaemelum nobile, , Calluna vulgarisCalluna vulgaris, , Brassica rapaBrassica rapa

No obvious correlation -No obvious correlation -Beta vulgaris Beta vulgaris subsp.subsp. maritima maritima and and Trifolium repensTrifolium repens

Possible association with introgression with cropsPossible association with introgression with crops

In the absence of genetic diversity information, In the absence of genetic diversity information, ecogeographic data provides the best approximation!ecogeographic data provides the best approximation!


Too expensive to collate Too expensive to collate de novode novo

Review what is available via a web Review what is available via a web searchsearch

2b -2b - Genetic Diversity Genetic Diversity Assessment: Assessment: VignaVigna

Entirely restricted to cowpea gene Entirely restricted to cowpea gene pool studiespool studies

– Eleven subspecies plus several varieties Eleven subspecies plus several varieties

– Pasquet (1993a, 1993b, 1997)Pasquet (1993a, 1993b, 1997)

– Coulibaly Coulibaly et al.et al. (2002) (2002)

Is this situation typical?Is this situation typical?

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Ecogeographic Diversity AssessmentAssessment

In the absence of genetic diversity In the absence of genetic diversity data ecogeographic data provides data ecogeographic data provides the most appropriate proxythe most appropriate proxy

Established models for Established models for ecogeographic data collection, ecogeographic data collection, analysis and application, e.g. Maxted analysis and application, e.g. Maxted at al.at al. (1995, etc.) (1995, etc.)

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Assessment: Vigna Vigna

Based on 7,300 herbarium specimens and Based on 7,300 herbarium specimens and 1,912 germplasm accessions1,912 germplasm accessions

Herbarium specimens from 30 herbaria in Herbarium specimens from 30 herbaria in Africa, Europe and North AmericaAfrica, Europe and North America

Germplasm accessions from 4 gene banks Germplasm accessions from 4 gene banks (IITA, ILRI, CIAT and Jardin Botanique (IITA, ILRI, CIAT and Jardin Botanique Nationale de Belgique)Nationale de Belgique)

Basis of analysisBasis of analysis

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment: VignaVigna

Density of collections in 200 km x 200 km grid cells


Observed geographic area of distribution calculated using the Circular Area statistic with a 50km radius (CA50)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500unguiculata

vexillata

ambacensis

reticulata

frutescens

racemosa

luteola

oblongifolia

gracilis

membranacea

comosa

parkeri

macrorhyncha

multinervis

nigritia

radicans

schimperi

kirkii

monophylla

venulosa

antunesii

pygmaea

adenantha

platyloba

fischeri

marina

juruana

filicauli

schlechteri

friesiorum

juncea

heterophylla

angivensis

triphylla

gazensis

longifoli

desmodioides

stenophylla

radiata

longissima

decipiensis

bequaertii

davyi

benuensis

praecox

haumaniana

laurentii

subterranea

kokii

procera

hosei

phoenix

keraudrenii

monantha

virescens

mudenia

nyangensis

bosseri

richardsiae

mungo

umbellata

nuda

debanensis

dolomitica

kassneri

somaliensis

tisserantiana

trilobata

Species

CA

50 (

1000

's k

m2)


Species richness per degree latitude

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Latitude (o)

Sp

ecie

s R

ich

nes

s


Species richness per 50m altitude class

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Altitude (m)

Sp

ecie

s R

ich

nes

s

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment: VignaVignaSpecies richness of Vigna in 20 km x 20 km grid cells

smoothed using inverse distance weighting and a window of 200 km radius

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment: VignaVignaAbsolute species richness based on herbarium collections only

in 200 km x 200 km grid cells

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment: VignaVignaAbsolute species richness of germplasm collections only in 200

km x 200 km grid cells

2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment:Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment: VignaVignaPredicted distribution of species richness

2d - 2d - Threat AssessmentThreat Assessment Media reportsMedia reports

– Target taxon specificTarget taxon specific– Region or nation specific Region or nation specific

IUCN categoriesIUCN categories– Need to understand is incompleteNeed to understand is incomplete

IUCN Assessment for IUCN Assessment for VignaVigna

AssessorsAssessors Red List Red List Criteria Criteria VersionVersion

CategoriesCategories

Walter and Walter and Gillett (1998) Gillett (1998)

Pre-1994Pre-1994 V. debanensis V. debanensis (Ethiopia) = Vulnerable(Ethiopia) = Vulnerable

V. dolomiticaV. dolomitica (Zaire) = Rare (Zaire) = Rare

Golding Golding (2002) (2002)

19941994 Vigna comosaVigna comosa subsp. subsp. abercornensis abercornensis (Zambia)(Zambia) = Vulnerable = Vulnerable

Maxted Maxted et al.et al. (2005)(2005)

20012001 6 6 VignaVigna = Critically Endangered = Critically Endangered

8 8 VignaVigna = Endangered = Endangered

10 10 VignaVigna = Vulnerable = Vulnerable

5 5 VignaVigna = Near Threatened = Near Threatened

28 28 VignaVigna = Least Concern = Least Concern

4 4 VignaVigna = Data Deficient = Data Deficient

Taxon Vulnerability Taxon Vulnerability AssessmentAssessment

IUCN Red Listing is best assessment, but not always IUCN Red Listing is best assessment, but not always sufficient datasufficient data

Can approximate vulnerability to genetic diversity and Can approximate vulnerability to genetic diversity and even extinction using seven criteria: even extinction using seven criteria: – rarity rarity – distributional rangedistributional range– gross representation in gross representation in ex situex situ collections collections– geographic coverage of geographic coverage of ex situex situ collections collections– coverage of coverage of ex situex situ collections collections– utility utility – extinction assessment extinction assessment

Crude measureCrude measure

Taxon Vulnerability Taxon Vulnerability Assessment AnalysisAssessment Analysis

Rarity - estimated from the total number of herbarium Rarity - estimated from the total number of herbarium

specimens and gene bank accessions of each taxonspecimens and gene bank accessions of each taxon

Distributional range – calculated from a radius around Distributional range – calculated from a radius around each collecting locality and then by merging the each collecting locality and then by merging the resulting circles calculates the total distributional area resulting circles calculates the total distributional area

Gross representation in Gross representation in ex situex situ collections - numbers of collections - numbers of gene bank accessions should be approximately 10% of gene bank accessions should be approximately 10% of the number of herbarium specimens, any species with a the number of herbarium specimens, any species with a lower proportion are vulnerable lower proportion are vulnerable


Geographic coverage of Geographic coverage of ex situex situ collections - collections - compares the geographic distribution of compares the geographic distribution of ex situex situ conserved accessions with the entire range of conserved accessions with the entire range of geographic distribution geographic distribution

Intra-species coverage of Intra-species coverage of ex situex situ collections – collections – compares compares ex situex situ sampling with actual sampling with actual distributiondistribution

Utility – Within the genetic resource context it is Utility – Within the genetic resource context it is entirely viable to include a use factorentirely viable to include a use factor


Extinction assessment - Solow’s equation (Solow, Extinction assessment - Solow’s equation (Solow, 1993) as proposed by Burgman 1993) as proposed by Burgman et al.et al. (1995), (1995), which uses a combinationwhich uses a combination– Collection timingCollection timing– FrequencyFrequency– Specimen numbers Specimen numbers

Each one generates a numeric score of 0 – 10Each one generates a numeric score of 0 – 10

Scores are calculated for taxaScores are calculated for taxa

Taxon Vulnerability Taxon Vulnerability Assessment Analysis: VignaAssessment Analysis: Vigna

Species Rarity Distrib-ution

Ex situ holdings

Ex situ coverage

Taxoncoverage

Use Taxon extinction

TVA score

V. adenantha 5 2.5 9 8 0 4 4 4.6

V. ambacensis 1 0 2 4 0 10 1 2.6

V. angivensis 2 5 10 10 0 6 4 5.3

V. antunesii 3 2.5 10 10 0 0 3 4.1

V. benuensis 7 7.5 9 6 0 0 6 5.1

V. bequaertii 7 7.5 10 10 0 0 1 5.1

V. bosseri 10 10 10 10 0 0 9 7.0

V. comosa 2 0 8 6 10 0 1 3.9

V. desmodioides 7 5 10 10 0 0 4 5.1

Step 3:Step 3:Assessment of current Assessment of current conservation strategiesconservation strategies

In situIn situ– Genetic reserve of CWRGenetic reserve of CWR– On-farm of landracesOn-farm of landraces

Ex situEx situ– Seed bank of germplasmSeed bank of germplasm– Other techniques ?Other techniques ?

3a 3a - - In situIn situ techniques / techniques / reservereserve

No active genetic reserves for No active genetic reserves for Vigna Vigna speciesspecies

Passive conservation which is Passive conservation which is coincident with existing protected areacoincident with existing protected area

Likely to establish reserve in existing Likely to establish reserve in existing protected areaprotected area

MAB Protected Areas in MAB Protected Areas in AfricaAfrica

3a 3a - - In situIn situ techniques / techniques / reservereserve

MAB not only protected areas, many other see IUCN MAB not only protected areas, many other see IUCN listing of National Parks and Protected Areaslisting of National Parks and Protected Areas

Few countries have adequate represented of Few countries have adequate represented of protected areas like Kenya, Guinea and South protected areas like Kenya, Guinea and South Africa Africa

54% of wild species 54% of wild species VignaVigna are predicted to have are predicted to have populations present in at least one protected area populations present in at least one protected area

In reality, the number and ecogeographic diversity In reality, the number and ecogeographic diversity of African of African VignaVigna species makes species makes in situin situ conservation conservation the only practical conservation option for adequate the only practical conservation option for adequate conservation of the broadest gene pool conservation of the broadest gene pool

Need to match distribution to existing protected Need to match distribution to existing protected areasareas

3a 3a - - In situIn situ techniques / on- techniques / on-farmfarm

Find by literature / media / internet reviewFind by literature / media / internet review

Cowpea (Cowpea (V. unguiculataV. unguiculata) is included in IPGRI’s ) is included in IPGRI’s current on-farm conservation project in Burkina current on-farm conservation project in Burkina Faso (Jarvis and Ndungứ-Skilton, 2000)Faso (Jarvis and Ndungứ-Skilton, 2000)

Shea project in Uganda includes Bambara Shea project in Uganda includes Bambara groundnut (groundnut (Vigna subterraneaVigna subterranea))

Community Technology Development Trust Community Technology Development Trust project in Zimbabwe includes project in Zimbabwe includes V. subterranea V. subterranea and and V. unguiculataV. unguiculata (Odero, 2001) (Odero, 2001)

But no systematic on-farm conservation of But no systematic on-farm conservation of VignaVigna in Africain Africa

3b - 3b - Ex situ Ex situ techniquestechniques Review of gene bank holdings, SINGER, Review of gene bank holdings, SINGER,

EURISCO, but little help for AfricaEURISCO, but little help for Africa

SpeciesSpecies IITAIITA NBGNBGBB

USDUSDAA

OtheOtherr

V. unguiculataV. unguiculata subsp. subsp. unguiculataunguiculata

14,8814,8877

1515 4,394,3999

--

V. unguiculataV. unguiculata wild wild 553553 188188 244244 5151

V. subterraneaV. subterranea 20322032 00 6464 --

Other Other VignaVigna taxa taxa 12161216 304304 5050 111111

3b - 3b - Ex situ Ex situ techniquestechniques Regression of Regression of VignaVigna species against herbarium species against herbarium

specimens and gene bank accessions from each specimens and gene bank accessions from each countrycountry

Results indicate Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland were over-collected, while Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zambia remain under-collected.

Step 4: Step 4: Setting priorities for Setting priorities for conservation actionconservation action

Having provided Having provided – The best possible picture of The best possible picture of in situin situ

natural diversitynatural diversity

– A review of current A review of current in situin situ and and ex situex situ conservation actionsconservation actions

Comparison of the two identifies Comparison of the two identifies ‘Gaps’ ‘Gaps’

4a - 4a - In situIn situ conservation conservation prioritiespriorities

Highest concentration of taxa in Highest concentration of taxa in three three hotspots of hotspots of VignaVigna species richness species richness– around the Great Lakesaround the Great Lakes– the southern tip of Lake Tanganyikathe southern tip of Lake Tanganyika– the Cameroon Highlands the Cameroon Highlands

But crude species richness can give a But crude species richness can give a false impressionfalse impression


Complementarity analysis Complementarity analysis


Country Protected area name

Type of protected area

IUCN protected area categories

Location Area(km2)

Zambia Lusenga Plain National Park II 9°23'S/ 29°13'E 88,000

Mweru-Wantipa National Park II 8°44'S/ 29°38'E 313,400

Nsumbu National Park II 8°47'S/ 30°30'E 206,300

Tanzania Uwanda Game Reserve IV 8°32'S/ 32°08'E 500,000

Katavi National Park II 6°53'S/ 31°10'E 225,300

Mahale Mountain National Park II 6°10'S/ 29°50'E 157,700


Areas of Africa where Areas of Africa where in situin situ VignaVigna conservation action is conservation action is requiredrequired

4a - 4a - In situIn situ conservation conservation prioritiesprioritiesExisting protected areas where in situ Existing protected areas where in situ VignaVigna reserves could be established reserves could be established


With 23 of the 61 African With 23 of the 61 African VignaVigna species species being utilised and many of the species have being utilised and many of the species have multiple uses within subsistence agriculture, multiple uses within subsistence agriculture, on-farm conservation should be a priority!on-farm conservation should be a priority!

Inevitably it will focus initially on the two Inevitably it will focus initially on the two most widely cultivated grain legume most widely cultivated grain legume species, species, V. subterranea V. subterranea and and V. unguiculataV. unguiculata

But a more geographically systematic But a more geographically systematic approach that considers full taxonomic approach that considers full taxonomic breadth is requiredbreadth is required

4b - 4b - Ex situEx situ conservation conservation prioritiespriorities

Country basedCountry based prioritiespriorities– Highest priority: Cameroon, Democratic Highest priority: Cameroon, Democratic

Republic of the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Republic of the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Nigeria and ZambiaNigeria and Zambia

– Other priorities: Angola, Benin, Burundi, Other priorities: Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, the Democratic Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, The Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tanzania and Zambia. Tanzania and Zambia.

4b - 4b - Ex situEx situ conservation conservation prioritiespriorities

Priority Rating

Vigna taxa

High priority

V. dolomitica, V. haumaniana var. pedunculata, V. monantha, V. nuda, V. richardsiae, V. somaliensis, V. stenophylla, V. subterranea var. spontanea, V. unguiculata subsp. unguiculata var. spontanea, V. unguiculata subsp. aduensis, V. unguiculata subsp. baoulensis, V. unguiculata subsp. burundiensis, V. vexillata var. dolichonema and V. virescens.

Medium Priority

V. bequaertii, V. comosa subsp. comosa var. lebrunii, V. desmodioides, V. haumaniana, V. haumaniana var. haumaniana, V. hosei, V. laurentii, V. multinervis, V. parkeri subsp. parkeri, V. phoenix, V. procera.

Low priority

V. adenantha, V. angivensis, V. antunesii, V. bosseri, V. comosa, V. comosa subsp. abercornensis, V. fischeri, V. frutescens, V. frutescens subsp. kotschyi, V. gazensis, V. juncea, V. juncea var. corbyi, V. juruana, V. keraudrenii, V. kokii, V. longifolia, V. longissima, V. macrorhyncha, V. membranacea subsp. macrodon, V. microsperma, V. monophylla, V. mudenia, V. parkeri, V. praecox, V. pygmaea, V. schimperi, V. triphylla and V. venulosa.

ConclusionConclusionProposed MethodologyProposed Methodology

Step 1:Step 1:Circumscription of target taxon and target area Circumscription of target taxon and target area

Step 2: Step 2: Assessment of natural Assessment of natural in situin situ diversity diversity 2a - Taxonomic Diversity Assessment 2a - Taxonomic Diversity Assessment 2b -2b - Genetic Diversity Assessment Genetic Diversity Assessment 2c -2c - Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment Ecogeographic Diversity Assessment 2d - Threat Assessment 2d - Threat Assessment

Step 3:Step 3:Assessment of current conservation strategies Assessment of current conservation strategies 3a 3a - - In situIn situ techniques techniques 3b - 3b - Ex situEx situ techniques techniques

Step 4: Step 4: Setting priorities for conservation action Setting priorities for conservation action 4a - 4a - In situIn situ conservation priorities conservation priorities 4b - 4b - Ex situEx situ conservation priorities conservation priorities

Need refinement but could be a working basis for PGR GA?Need refinement but could be a working basis for PGR GA?

plant genetic resource gap analysis: targeting cwr for in situ and ex situ conservation

Documents