Skip to main content
Log in

Towards a definition of a crop wild relative

  • Published:
Biodiversity & Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Crop wild relatives are an important socio-economic resource that is currently being eroded or even extinguished through careless human activities. If the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD 2010 Biodiversity Target of achieving a significant reduction in the current rate of loss is to be achieved, we must first define what crop wild relatives are and how their conservation might be prioritised. A definition of a crop wild relative is proposed and illustrated in the light of previous Gene Pool concept theory. Where crossing and genetic diversity information is unavailable, the Taxon Group concept is introduced to assist recognition of the degree of crop wild relative relatedness by using the existing taxonomic hierarchy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CBD:

Convention on Biological Diversity

COP:

Conference of the Parties to the CBD

CWR:

Crop wild relative

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

GM:

Genetic modification

GP:

Gene pool

PGR:

Plant genetic resources

TG:

Taxon group

References

  • Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity: Text and Annexes. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Devos K. and Gale M. (1997). Comparative genetics in the grasses. Plant Molecular Biology 35: 3–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Enneking D. and Maxted N. (1995). Narbon bean: Vicia narbonensis L. (Leguminosae). In: Smartt, J. and Simmonds, N.W. (eds) Evolution of crop plants, 2nd edn, pp 316–321. Longman Group, Harlow Essex

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (1998). The State of the World=s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2001). International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint M. (1991). Biological Diversity and Developing Countries: Issues and Options. Overseas Development Administration, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford-Lloyd B.V. (2005). Biancardi, E., de Biaggi, M., Campbell, L.G. and Skaracis, G.N. (eds) Genetics and Breeding of Sugar Beet, pp. Science Publishers Inc, Enfield, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge B. and Jenkins M. (2002). World atlas of biodiversity. In: (eds) Prepared by the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, pp. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlan J. and de Wet J. (1971). Towards a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxon 20: 509–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlan J. (1992). Crops and Man. American Society of Agronomy, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes J. (1991). International workshop on dynamic in situ conservation of wild relatives of major cultivated plants: summary of final discussion and recommendations. Israel Journal of Botany 40: 529–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood V. (1994). The measurement of biodiversity and the politics of implementation. In: Forey, P., Humphries, C. and Vane-Wright, R. (eds) Systematics and Conservation Evaluation, pp 15–22. Systematic Association Special Volume 50. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood V. and Zohary D. (1995). A catalogue of the wild relatives of cultivated plants native to Europe. Flora Mediterranea 5: 375–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N. (1995). Biodiversity in the balance: approaches to setting geographic conservation priorities. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell S. and Maxted N. 2003. (compilers). Report of Workshop 1. European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum – PGR Forum. www.prgforum.org.

  • Maxted N. (1993). A phenetic investigation of Vicia L. subgenus Vicia (Leguminosae, Vicieae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 111: 155–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N., Ford-Lloyd B. and Hawkes J. (1997a). Plant Genetic Conservation: the In situ Approach. Chapman & Hall, London, 1–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N., Hawkes J., Guarino L. and Sawkins M. (1997b). The selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 44: 337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N., Mabuza-Dlamini P., Moss H., Padulosi S., Jarvis A. and Guarino L. (2004). African Vigna: an Ecogeographic Study. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Meilleur B. and Hodgkin T. (2004). Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 663–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitteau M. and Soupizet F. 2000. Preparation of a preliminary list of priority target species for in situ conservation in Europe. In: Laliberté B., Maggioni L., Maxted N. and Negri V. (eds). (compilers). ECP/GR In situ and On-farm Conservation Network Report of a Task Force on Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves and a Task Force on On-farm Conservation and Management Joint meeting, 18–20 May 2000. Isola PolveseItaly.

  • Schlosser S., Reichhoff L. and Hanelt P. (1991). Wildpflanzen Mitteleuropas. Deutscher Landwirtschaftsverlag Berlin GmbH, Nutzung und Schutz

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Vavilov. 1920. The law of homologous series in variation. Proceedings of the III All-Russian plant breeding conference, Saratov, p. 16

  • Vavilov N. (1922). The law of homologous series in variation. Journal of Genetics 12: 47–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson M., Sweet J. and Poppy G. (2003). Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding the gridlock. Trends in Plant Science 8: 208–212

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeven A. and Zhukovsky P. (1975). Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Centres of Diversity. Excluding ornamentals, forest trees and lower plants. PUDOC, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nigel Maxted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B.V., Jury, S. et al. Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. Biodivers Conserv 15, 2673–2685 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-5409-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-5409-6

Keywords

Navigation