Ex situ conservation of CWR

species in the Nordic region

Anna Palmé

Vilnius 2016-09-21

Nordic conservation of plant

genetic resources

• Strong cooperation

among the Nordic

countries in this field

• Combination of Nordic

and national efforts

Finnish GR

Norwegian GR

Swedish GR

Danish GR

Icelandic GR

Inner circle: Vegetatively

propagated crops (and on farm)

Outer circle: Seed propagated crops

NGB

NGB

SE-NP

NO-

NP DK-

NP

FI-NP IS-NP

NGB

NGB

NGB

Ex situ conservation responsibility of crop genetic resources in

the Nordic region is divided between NordGen (NGB) and the

national programs or equivalent (NPs)

National genetic

resources (GR)

Nordic genetic resources

Meetings

Projects

Agreements

Shared data base

Finnish

NP

NordGen

Swedish

NP

Danish

“NP”

Islandic

“NP”

Norwegian

NP

Linking actors and information

for efficient conservation

NordGen responsible for

facilitating cooperation and

providing the IT framework

Agreement on how to share

responsibility

• “Responsibilities and tasks of

NordGen and the Nordic

national programs for plant

genetic resources - A

clarification”

– Clear for crops

– No agreement for CWR

Finnish GR

Norwegian GR

Swedish GR

Danish GR

Icelandic GR

Division of conservation responsibility of CWR genetic

resources in the Nordic region remains to be determined: a draft

suggestion from 2012 divides responsibility between the national programs (NPs),

national authorities for nature protection (NA) and NordGen (NGB)

NGB

NGB

SE-NP

NO-

NP DK-

NP

FI-NP IS-NP

NGB

NGB

NGB

IS-NA

DK-

NA

SE-NA

NO-

NA

FI-NA

Inner circle:

Ex situ, seed

propagated

crops

Outer circle:

in situ in wild

habitats

Middle circle:

on-farm/in

cultivated

landscapes

Agreements

National genetic

resources (GR)

Nordic actors (ex situ conservation of CWR)

• NordGen – regional gene bank

• National programmes

– (National field gene banks)

• National gene banks for

threatened species (Norway,

Finland)

• Botanic gardens

NordGen

• Governed by the Nordic Council of Ministers – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden

• Three sections: Plants, Farm animals and Forest

trees

• Regional plant gene bank for the Nordic countries

– Nordic Gene Bank: established in 1979

– Converted to NordGen Plants January 1, 2008

NordGen and CWR

• NordGen´s mandate

includes conservation of

CWR – but the extent to

which CWRs should be

conserved at NordGen is

not clearly defined

Breeding and research

47%

Other 4%

Pending 2%

Cultivars 12%

Landrace 14%

Wild and semi-wild

21%

NordGen´s collection

Wild accessions at NordGen

Hordeum

Festuca

Barbarea

Phleum Poa

Trifolium

Dactylis

Agrostis

Phalaris

Elymus Lactuca

Lolium

Papaver Alopecurus

Allium

Carum

Deschampsia

Pisum

Bromus

Leymus

Angelica Ballota

Malva

Verbascum Genera <20 acc

The importance of wild material varies

among sub-collections

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Subcollections at NordGen

Breeding and research

Pending

Cultivars

Landrace

Wild and semi-wild

Other

Two conservation approaches for

CWRs at NordGen

• Long-term conservation

– Storage in 3 locations

– Regular monitoring

– Regenerated when needed

– Distributed to users

• Short-term conservation

– Storage in 2 locations

– No monitoring

– No regeneration

– Distributed to users

Flowchart long-

term

conservation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Breedingand

research

Cultivars Wild andsemi wild

Landrace Other Pending

No

. acc

essi

on

s Deliveries excluding hobby growers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Breedingand

research

Cultivars Wild andsemi wild

Landrace Other Pending

No

. acc

essi

on

s

Deliveries to all users, 2010-2015

Wild accessions are ordered and used

About 11% of the

accessions delivered from

NordGen are classified as

wild or semi-wild

How well is the Nordic CWR diversity covered

by ex situ conservation at NordGen?

• About 6 900 wild or semi-wild

accessions conserved at NordGen

from 360 different taxa

• A few priority CWR taxa are very

well covered. Focused sampling with

the aim to cover the Nordic region.

• No systematic efforts have been

made to sample a larger number of

CWRs (Danish NP sampled priority taxa

2014 and 2015)

• National priority taxa

– Finland: 209, 8 at NordGen*

– Norway: 204, 24 at NordGen*

Collection sites for timothy

accessions conserved at

NordGen

Phleum pratense

*Ref. priority taxa: Philips et al 2016 and Fitzgerald 2013

Ex situ conservation of CWRs

- What does it cost?

Tasks Rough cost estimates

Sampling (or resampling) 100 Euro/accession

Documentation 25 Euro/accession

Threshing, Seed cleaning

Germination testing,

packing, tgw

60 Euro/accession

Storage 1 Euro/accession

Distribution 15 Euro/distribution

(regeneration) (400 Euro/accession)

Low estimates:

Assume that the

equipment, IT

infrastructure,

administration and

trained staff are all in

place…

“Back-of-the-envelope” calculation

Example: 209 species from 5 locations (Finnish national strategy 209 prioritised taxa)

One sampling, no regeneration, 5 distributions: ~ 270 000 EUR (every 10-50 years)

One sampling, one regeneration, 5 distributions: ~ 690 000 EUR (every 10-50 years)

• Strengths

– facilitates use of genetic resources

– safety

• not threatened by climate change, habitat loss

or pollution

• duplication

• Weaknesses

– only a sample of the variation in the

natural population

– regeneration can lead to loss of genetic

variation and change in the genetic

makeup

– no adaptation/evolution

– high costs

Ex situ conservation

What role(s) should the ex situ approach have for

conservation of CWRs?

• When should ex situ conservation be the

main conservation approach?

• How and when should ex situ

conservation serve as back-up to in situ

conservation?

• Should ex situ storage be used as a way

to facilitate the use of the material?

• What roles should the different ex situ

actors have?

• How should ex situ and in situ

conservation be integrated in an efficient

way?

Thank you!