Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 1337–1352 | Cite as

National inventory and prioritization of crop wild relatives: case study for Benin

  • Rodrigue Idohou
  • Achille Ephrem Assogbadjo
  • Belarmain Fandohan
  • Gerard Nounagnon Gouwakinnou
  • Romain Lucas Glele Kakai
  • Brice Sinsin
  • Nigel Maxted
Research Article

Abstract

Species prioritization is a crucial step in any development of conservation strategy, especially for crop wild relatives (CWR), since financial resources are generally limited. This study aimed at: assessing the biodiversity of crop wild relatives in Benin and identifying priority species for active conservation. Data were collected through literature review to establish an exhaustive list of CWR in Benin. Eight prioritization criteria and different prioritization systems were used. The top 50 species obtained by each of these methods were identified and twenty final top CWR were shortlisted as those occurring as priority across methods. A total of 266 plant species belonging to 65 genera and 36 families were identified. The most represented are: Cyperaceae (12.50 %), Leguminosae-Papilionoideae (11.87 %), Convolvulaceae (11.25 %), Poaceae (10.31 %), Asteraceae (7.81 %), Solanaceae (6.87 %) and Dioscoreaceae (5.31 %). Among the 20 species of highest priority for conservation, Manihot glaziovii Müll. Arg. and Piper guineense Schumach. et Thonn., appeared as the most represented species on top of the list.

Keywords

Biodiversity Conservation Crop wild relatives Threat West Africa 

References

  1. Adomou AC (2005). Vegetation patterns and environmental gradient in Benin: implications for biogeography and conservation. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  2. Adomou AC, Sinsin B, Akoègninou AA, van der Maesen J (2010) Plant species and ecosystems with high conservation priority in Benin. In: van der Burgt X, van der Maesen J, Onana J-M (eds) System Conservation African Plants. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp 429–444Google Scholar
  3. Akoègninou A, van der Burg WJ, van der Maesen LJG (2006) Flore Analytique du Bénin. Backhuys Publishers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  4. Antoine H (2004) Crop wild relative inventory of the Seychelles. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  5. Brehm JM, Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Martins-Loução MA (2007) National inventories of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants: case-study for Portugal. Genet Resour Crop Evol 55:779–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brehm JM, Maxted N, Martins-Loução MA, Ford-Lloyd BV (2010) New approaches for establishing conservation priorities for socio-economically important plant species. Biodivers Conserv 19:2715–2740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavendish W (2000) Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: evidence from Zimbabwe. World Dev 28:1979–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chiara B, Crespo BM (2012) Inventory of related wild species of priority crops in Venezuela. Genet Resour Crop Evol 59:655–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coates DJ, Atkins KA (2001) Priority setting and the conservation of Western Australia’s diverse and highly endemic flora. Biol Conserv 97:251–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Codjia JTC, Assogbadjo AE, Ekue MRM (2003) Diversity and local valorisation of vegetal edible products in Bénin. Cahiers d’Etudes et de Recherches Francophones/Agricultures 12(5):321–331Google Scholar
  11. FAO (2009) Second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajjar R, Hodgkin T (2007) The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 156:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IUCN (2011) IUCN red list of threatened species. Version 2011. 2. www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed 21 Dec 2011
  14. Kell SP, Knüpffer H, Jury SL, Ford-Lloyd BV, Maxted N (2008) Crops and wild relatives of the Euro-Mediterranean region: making and using a conservation catalogue. In: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo J, Dulloo E, Turok J (eds) Crop wild relative conservation and use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 69–109Google Scholar
  15. Lawrence A, Phillips OL, Ismodes AR, Lopez M, Roses W, Farfan AJ (2005) Local values for harvested forest plants in Madrede Dios, Peru: towards a more contextualized interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodivers Conserv 14(1):45–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. MAEP (2010) Annuaire statistiques. Campagnes Agricoles 2008–2009. Direction de la programmation et de la Statistique, p 187Google Scholar
  17. Mahapatra AK, Albers HJ, Robinson EJZ (2005) The impact of NTFP sales on rural households cash income in India’s dry deciduous forest. Environ Manage 35(3):258–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maraseni TN (2008) Selection of non-timber forest species for community and private plantations in the high and low altitude areas of Makawanpur District, Nepal. Small-Scale For 7(2):151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maxted N, Kell SP (2009a) Establishment of a global network for the in-situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. FAO Consultancy Report. Rome, FAO, pp 1–265Google Scholar
  20. Maxted N, Kell SP (2009b) Commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Establishment of a global network for the in-situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. Background study paper no. 39, pp 212Google Scholar
  21. Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Hawkes JG (1997) Plant genetic conservation: the in-situ approach. Chapman and Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Jury S, Kell S, Scholten M (2006) Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. Biodivers Conserv 15(8):2673–2685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxted N, Scholten M, Codd R, Ford-Lloyd B (2007) Creation and use of a national inventory of crop wild relatives. Biol Conserv 140:142–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. N’danikou S, Achigan-Dako E, Wong JLG (2011) Eliciting local values of wild edible plants in Southern Bénin to identify priority species for conservation. Econ Bot 65(4):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phillips OL, Meilleur B (1998) Economic potential of the rare and endangered plants of North America. Econ Bot 52:57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran Q, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prescott-Allen R, Prescott-Allen C (1986) The first resource: wild species in the North American economy. Yale University, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  28. Rabinowitz D, Cairns S, Dillon T (1986) Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of British Isles. In: Soule ME (ed) Conservation biolology: science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer Associate, Sunderland, pp 182–204Google Scholar
  29. Tamang A (2004) Crop wild relative inventory of Bhutan. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, (Unpublished)Google Scholar
  30. UNEP (United National Environment Programme) (1995) In: Heywood V (ed) Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Vodouhê FG, Coulibaly O, Greene C, Sinsin B (2009) Estimating the local value of non-timber forest products to Pendjari Biosphere Reserve Dwellers in Benin. Econ Bot 63(4):397–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vodouhê FG, Coulibaly O, Adégbidi A, Sinsin B (2010) Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. For Policy Econ 12(7):505–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigue Idohou
    • 1
  • Achille Ephrem Assogbadjo
    • 1
  • Belarmain Fandohan
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gerard Nounagnon Gouwakinnou
    • 1
  • Romain Lucas Glele Kakai
    • 1
  • Brice Sinsin
    • 1
  • Nigel Maxted
    • 3
  1. 1.Laboratory of Applied EcologyUniversity of Abomey-CalaviCotonouBenin
  2. 2.International Ecosystem Management Partnership, United Nations Environment Programme, c/o Institute of Geography and Natural Resources ResearchChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.School of BiosciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations