Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development of national crop wild relative conservation strategies in European countries

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To generate European-wide information to contribute to the improvement of national and regional crop wild relative (CWR) conservation planning and the development of effective CWR conservation strategies, a questionnaire was sent to the members of the Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves Working Group of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) to collate information on progress in developing and implementing national CWR conservation strategies and action plans. Responses from 30 countries were analysed and literature sources were consulted to fill some information gaps. Results showed that 13 countries were in the preparation stage of their national strategies, i.e. having no drafts prepared yet, 14 in higher stages (from the first draft prepared to the published and approved ones), and three have not yet started the planning process. Twelve countries included all categories of species autochthony (i.e., native, archaeophyte and neophyte) in their priority CWR lists. Wild relatives of human and animal food crops were selected as the highest priorities by 23 and 22 countries, respectively. Relative level of threat was identified as the most important prioritization criterion by 23 countries. Italy reported the highest number of CWR in its national checklist (10,779 taxa) and priority list (1118 taxa), whereas Ireland reported the lowest number of CWR in its checklist (171 taxa) and Portugal reported the lowest number in its priority list (20 taxa). Regarding the percentages of prioritized CWR, the strictest approach was applied in Portugal—only 20 out of 2262 CWR taxa, or < 1%, were selected as priorities for conservation action, whereas in Spain 578 out of 929 CWR taxa, or about 62% were prioritized. Eleven countries have proposed the establishment of genetic reserves, from one per country (Israel) to an extended network (Germany and the Netherlands). Only the UK had a formally established genetic reserve. The highest number of priority CWR taxa that occur in existing protected areas was reported by Spain—472 species, or 82% of the national priority list, whereas the lowest number—14 species, or 70% of the national priority list—in Portugal. Israel reported the highest number of priority CWR taxa (319 or 98%) conserved in gene banks. Among the limitations in the development of national CWR strategies highlighted by countries, was the lack of an EU agency responsible for genetic resources. The development of CWR conservation strategies is mostly within the domains of agriculture (13 countries) and environment (12 countries), although both domains are involved in eight countries. The most successful results in the development and implementation of CWR conservations strategies are achieved in the countries where multiple stakeholders, including ministries, research institutions, NGOs, local communities, protected area authorities and national PGR committees are involved. Some discussion and conclusions regarding further developments are provided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CWR:

Crop wild relative(s)

ECPGR:

European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources

PGR:

Plant genetic resources

PA:

Protected area

AM:

Armenia

AT:

Austria

AZ:

Azerbaijan

BA:

Bosnia and Herzegovina

BG:

Bulgaria

BY:

Belarus

CY:

Cyprus

CZ:

Czech Republic

DE:

Germany

DK:

Denmark

EE:

Estonia

ES:

Spain

FI:

Finland

GR:

Greece

HR:

Croatia

IE:

Ireland

IL:

Israel

IT:

Italy

LT:

Lithuania

LV:

Latvia

NL:

Netherlands

NO:

Norway

PL:

Poland

PT:

Portugal

RO:

Romania

RS:

Serbia

RU:

Russian Federation

SE:

Sweden

TR:

Turkey

UK:

United Kingdom

References

  • Avagyan A (2008) Crop wild relatives in Armenia: diversity, legislation and conservation issues. In: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo JM, Dulloo E, Turok J (eds) Crop wild relative conservation and use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 58–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Barazani O, Perevolotsky A, Hadas R (2008) A problem of the rich: prioritizing local plant genetic resources for ex situ conservation in Israel. Biol Conserv 141(2):596–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn GK, Kristiansen K, Jacobsen LH (2011) Conservation of plant genetic resources of the wild relatives of agricultural crops (Published in Danish: Bevaring af plantegenetiske ressourcer I de vilde slægtninge til jordbrugets afgrøder). 152 pp. http://lfst.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Landbrug/Genetiske_ressourcer/Planter/Publikationer/DJF-rapport__revideret_version_af_april_2011.pdf. Accessed June 2016

  • Brown AHD, Briggs JD (1991) Sampling strategies for genetic variation in ex situ collections of endangered plant species. In: Falk DA, Holsinger KE (eds) Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 99–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown AHD, Marshall DR (1995) A basic sampling strategy: theory and practice. In: Guarino L, Ramanatha Rao V, Reid R (eds) Collecting plant genetic diversity: technical guidelines. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 75–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Castañeda-Álvarez NP, Khoury CK, Achicanoy HA, Bernau V, Dempewolf H, Eastwood RJ, Guarino L, Harker RH, Jarvis A, Maxted N, Müller JV, Ramirez-Villegas J, Sosa CC, Struik PC, Vincent H, Toll J (2016) Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nat Plants 2:16022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • CBD (2010) Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020, including Aichi biodiversity targets. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml. Accessed Jan 2017

  • CBD (2015) Notification strengthening the in situ conservation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture through incorporation of crop wild relatives under areas important for biodiversity in protected area networks and other effective area-based conservation measures. https://www.cbd.int/doc/notifications/2015/ntf-2015-092-gspc-en.pdf. Accessed July 2017

  • Cook FEM (1995) Economic botany data collection standards. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, p 146

    Google Scholar 

  • ECPGR (2015) Objectives of ECPGR for phase IX (2014–2018) (v2, April 2015). http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/fileadmin/templates/ecpgr.org/upload/TORs_PHase_IX/Objectives_V2_April_2015.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017

  • EP (2012) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Parliament resolution of 20 April 2012 (2011/2307(INI)). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/EP_resolution_april2012.pdf. Accessed Apr 2017

  • EUFGIS (2011) Establishment of a European information system on forest genetic resources. http://www.eufgis.org. Accessed Mar 2017

  • European Union (2011) The EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/2020%20Biod%20brochure%20final%20lowres.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017

  • FAO (2001) International treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http://planttreaty.org. Accessed Dec 2016

  • FAO (2011) Second global plan of action for plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. http://fao.org/docrep/015/i2624e/i2624e00.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017

  • FAO (2015) The second report on the state of the world’s plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Rome, Italy). www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e00.htm. Accessed Jan 2017

  • Fielder H, Hopkins J, Smith C, Kell S, Ford-Lloyd B, Maxted N (2012) UK wild species to underpin global food security: species selection, genetic reserves and targeted collection. Crop Wild Relat 8:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielder H, Brotherton P, Hosking J, Hopkins JJ, Ford-Lloyd B, Maxted N (2015) Enhancing the conservation of crop wild relatives in England. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0130804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130804

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald H (2013) The national crop wild relative strategy report for Finland, MTT Report 121, MTT, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland. 96 pp. http://www.mtt.fi/mttraportti/pdf/mttraportti121.pdf. Accessed Dec 2016

  • Harlan JR, de Wet JMJ (1971) Toward a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxon 20(4):509–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood V (2011) Crop wild relatives in the project countries. In: Hunter D, Heywood V (eds) Crop wild relatives: a manual of in situ conservation. Bioversity International, pp 31–45. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/fileadmin/templates/cropwildrelatives.org/upload/In_situ_Manual/Crop-wild-relatives-a-manual-of-In-situ-conservation-full.pdf. Accessed Feb 2017

  • Heywood V (2011a) Developing national CWR strategies and action plans. In: Hunter D, Heywood V (eds) Crop wild relatives: a manual of in situ conservation. Bioversity International, pp 109–128. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/fileadmin/templates/cropwildrelatives.org/upload/In_situ_Manual/Crop-wild-relatives-a-manual-of-In-situ-conservation-full.pdf. Accessed Feb 2017

  • Hunter D (2011) Planning for CWR conservation and partnership building. In: Hunter D, Heywood V (eds) Crop wild relatives: a manual of in situ conservation. Bioversity International, pp 71–85. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/fileadmin/templates/cropwildrelatives.org/upload/In_situ_Manual/Crop-wild-relatives-a-manual-of-In-situ-conservation-full.pdf. Accessed Feb 2017

  • Iriondo JM, Maxted N, Kell SP, Ford-Lloyd BV, Lara-Romero C, Labokas J, Magos Brehm J (2012) Quality standards for genetic reserve conservation of crop wild relatives. In: Maxted N, Dulloo ME, Ford-Lloyd BV, Frese L, Iriondo JM, de Carvalho MAAP (eds) Agrobiodiversity conservation: securing the diversity of crop wild relatives and landraces. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 72–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Iriondo JM, Fielder H, Fitzgerald H, Kell SP, Labokas J, Magos Brehm J, Maxted N, Negri V, Phillips J, Rubio-Teso ML, Sensen S, Taylor N (2016) National strategies for the conservation of crop wild relatives. In: Maxted N, Dulloo ME, Ford-Lloyd BV (eds) Enhancing crop genepool use: capturing wild relative and landrace diversity for crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 161–171

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jain SK (1975) Genetic reserves. In: Frankel OH, Hawkes JG (eds) Crop genetic resources for today and tomorrow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 379–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis S, Fielder H, Brotherton P, Hopkins JJ, Maxted N, Smart S (2015) Distribution of crop wild relatives of conservation priority in the UK landscape. Biol Conserv 191:444–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kell SP, Knüpffer H, Jury SL, Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV (2005) Catalogue of crop wild relatives for Europe and the Mediterranean. University of Birmingham, Birmingham

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 JM, Dulloo ME, Turok J (eds) Crop wild relative conservation and use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 69–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell SP, Ford-Lloyd BV, Magos Brehm J, Iriondo JM, Maxted N (2017) Broadening the base, narrowing the task: prioritizing crop wild relative taxa for conservation action. Crop Sci 57:1042–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labokas J, Karpavičienė B, Rašomavičius V, Gelvonauskis B (2016) Developing national crop wild relative in situ conservation strategy for Lithuania: creation of national CWR inventory and its prioritization. In: Maxted N, Dulloo ME, Ford-Lloyd BV (eds) Enhancing crop genepool use: capturing wild relative and landrace diversity for crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 217–230

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Landucci F, Panella L, Lucarini D, Gigante D, Donnini D, Kell S, Maxted N, Venanzoni R, Negri V (2014) A prioritized inventory of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants of Italy. Crop Sci 54:1628–1644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magos Brehm J, Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Martins-Loução MA (2008) National inventories of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants: case-study for Portugal. Genet Resour Crop Evol 55:779–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magos Brehm J, Maxted N, Martins-Loução MA, Ford-Lloyd BV (2010) New approaches for establishing conservation priorities for socio-economically important plant species. Biodivers Conserv 19:2715–2740

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magos Brehm J, Kell S, Thormann I, Dulloo E, Maxted N (2017) Interactive toolkit for crop wild relative conservation planning version 1.0. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK and Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/conservation-toolkit/

  • Marshall DR, Brown AHD (1975) Optimum sampling strategies in genetic conservation. In: Frankel OH, Hawkes JH (eds) Crop genetic resources for today and tomorrow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 53–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Kell S (2009) Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. Commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 266 pp. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1500e/i1500e18d.pdf. Accessed Mar 2017

  • Maxted N, Hawkes JG, Guarino L, Sawkins M (1997) The selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genet Resour Crop Evol 44:337–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Jury SL, Kell SP, Scholten MA (2006) Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. Biodivers Conserv 15:2673–2685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Scholten M, Codd R, Ford-Lloyd B (2007) Creation and use of a national inventory of crop wild relatives. Biol Conserv 140:142–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Akparov ZI, Aronsson M, Asdal Å, Avagyan A, Bartha B, Benediková DT, Berishvili T, Bocci R, Cop J, Curtis T, Daugstad K, Dias S, Duarte MC, Dzmitryeva S, Engels JMM, Fasoula DA, Ferant N, Frese L, Freudenthaler P, Hadas R, Holly L, Ibraliu A, Iriondo JM, Ivanovska S, Jinjikhadze T, Kamari G, Kell SP, Kik C, Koop L, Korpelainen H, Kristiansen K, Kyratzis A, Labokas J, Maggioni L, Magos Brehm J, Maloupa E, Martinez JJR, Mendes Moreira PMR, Musayev M, Radun M, Ralli P, Sandru D, Sarikyan K, Schierscher-Viret B, Smekalova T, Stehno Z, Stoilova T, Strajeru S, Tan A, Veteläinen M, Vögel R, Vorosvary G, Negri V (2012a) Current and future threats and opportunities facing European crop wild relative and landrace diversity. In: Maxted N, Dulloo ME, Ford-Lloyd BV, Frese L, Iriondo JM, de Carvalho MAAP (eds) Agrobiodiversity conservation: securing the diversity of crop wild relatives and landraces. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 333–354

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Kell SP, Ford-Lloyd BV, Dulloo ME, Toledo A (2012b) Toward the systematic conservation of global crop wild relative diversity. Crop Sci 52(2):774–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxted N, Magos Brehm J, Kell S (2013) Resource book for preparation of national conservation plans for crop wild relatives and landraces. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/PubPGR/ResourceBook/TEXT_ALL_2511.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017

  • Maxted N, Avagyan A, Frese L, Iriondo JM, Magos Brehm J, Singer A, Kell SP (2015) ECPGR Concept for in situ conservation of crop wild relatives in Europe. Wild species conservation in genetic reserves Working Group, European Cooperative Programme for plant genetic resources. Rome, Italy. www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/fileadmin/templates/ecpgr.org/upload/WG_UPLOADS_PHASE_IX/WILD_SPECIES/Concept_for_in__situ_conservation_of_CWR_in_Europe.pdf. Accessed Dec 2016

  • Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Zambia (2016) National strategic action plan for the conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives in Zambia. http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/fileadmin/templates/cropwildrelatives.org/upload/documents/NSAP_Zambia_endorsed.pdf. Accessed July 2017

  • Panella L, Landucci S, Torricelli R, Gigante D, Donnini D, Venanzoni R, Negri V (2014) The national crop wild relative strategy for Italy: first steps to be taken. PGR Secure. http://www.pgrsecure.bham.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/public/National_CWR_Conservation_Strategy_Italy.pdf. Accessed Feb 2017

  • Phillips J, Kyratzis A, Christoudoulou C, Kell S, Maxted N (2014) Development of a national crop wild relative conservation strategy for Cyprus. Genet Resour Crop Evol 61(4):817–827. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10722-013-0076-z.pdf. Accessed Jan 2017

  • Phillips J, Åsdal A, Magos Brehm J, Rasmussen M, Maxted N (2016) In situ and ex situ diversity analysis of priority crop wild relatives in Norway. Divers Distrib 22:1112–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo AG (1994) Iterative selection procedures: centres of endemism and optimal placement of reserves. In: Huntley BJ (ed) Botanical diversity in Southern Africa. National Botanic Institute, Pretoria, pp 231–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubio Teso ML, Torres Lamas E, Parra-Quijano M, de la Rosa L, Fajardo J, Iriondo JM (2018) National inventory and prioritization of crop wild relatives in Spain. Genet Resour Crop Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-018-0610-0

  • Smekalova TN (2008) National crop wild relative in situ conservation strategy for Russia. In: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo JM, Dulloo E, Turok J (eds) Crop wild relative conservation and use. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 143–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Smekalova TN (2011) Conservation strategy of plant genetic resources (the case of Russia and Kazakhstan). In: Alexanian SM et al. Contemporary methods and international experience in conservation of wild plant genetic resources (the case of wild fruit plants). Almaty, 2011, 188 pp., 23 ill. pp 62–72 [Published in Russian: Cмeкaлoвa TH Cтpaтeгии coxpaнeния гeнeтичecкиx pecypcoв pacтeний (нa пpимepe Poccии и Кaзaxcтaнa)//Aлeкcaнян CM Пoнoмapeнкo BB, Бypмиcтpoв ЛA, Cмeкaлoвa TH, Copoкин AA, Шлявac AB, Ceдoв EH, Гopбyнoв ЮH, Дoлгиx CГ, Xapлaмoвa TA, Tкaчeнкo КГ, Фиpcoв ГA, Упeлниeк BП, Payзин EГ, Mищeнкo AБ, Poдиoнoв AM, Maxted N, Coвpeмeнныe мeтoды и мeждyнapoдный oпыт coxpaнeния гeнoфoндa дикopacтyщиx pacтeний (нa пpимepe дикиx плoдoвыx). Aлмaты, 2011, 188 c., 23 илл. C. 62–72.]

  • Smekalova TN, Chukhina IG, Luneva NN (2003) Specific features of the strategy for in situ conservation of wild relatives of cultivated plants in Russia. Acta Hortic 623:61–68. http://www.actahort.org/books/623/623_5.htm. Accessed Feb 2017

  • Tanksley SD, McCouch SR (1997) Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277:1063–1066

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor NG, Kell SP, Holubec V, Parra-Quijano M, Chobot K, Maxted N (2017) A systematic conservation strategy for crop wild relatives in the Czech Republic. Divers Distrib. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12539

    Google Scholar 

  • van Treuren R, Hoekstra R, van Hintum TJL (2017) Inventory and prioritization for the conservation of crop wild relatives in The Netherlands under climate change. Biol Conserv 216:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vavilov NI (1935) Theoretical basis for plant breeding, vol. 1. Moscow. Origin and geography of cultivated plants, pp 316–366 in The Phytogeographical Basis for Plant Breeding (D. Love, transl.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK

  • Vincent H, Wiersema J, Kell S, Fielder H, Dobbie S, Castañeda-Álvarez NP, Guarino L, Eastwood R, León B, Maxted N (2013) A prioritized crop wild relative inventory to help underpin global food security. Biol Conserv 167:265–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The ECPGR project ‘CWR Conservation Strategies’ provided the framework for this study. We are grateful to the project partners Lothar Frese, Vojtech Holubec, Heli Fitzgerald, Angelos Kyratzis, Necla Taş, Katya Uzundzhalieva, Safiya Dmitrieva and Tom Curtis, who contributed to the preparation of the questionnaire, and to the ECPGR Wild Species Conservation in Genetic Reserves Working Group members and ECPGR National Coordinators who responded to the questionnaire and provided data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juozas Labokas.

Additional information

Disclaimer The information provided in this paper should not be considered as reflecting official positions or views of the countries mentioned thereof.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 21 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Labokas, J., Maxted, N., Kell, S. et al. Development of national crop wild relative conservation strategies in European countries. Genet Resour Crop Evol 65, 1385–1403 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-018-0621-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-018-0621-x

Keywords

Navigation