in situ cwr conservation: 9 recommendations and a proposal€¦ · red list assessments of 572...
TRANSCRIPT
In Situ CWR
Conservation:
9 recommendations and a
proposal
N. Maxted, S. Kell, J. Magos Brehm and Colleagues
Preparatory action on EU plant and animal
genetic resources - Final conference
Genetic Resources for EU Agriculture:
Status and Vision
9th June 2016
In Situ CWR Conservation
• Context
• How we plan (and implement) in situ
conservation
• Preparatory action: 9 Recommendations
and a proposal: N.I. Vavilov CWR Network
Sea Carrot, Daucus carota subsp. gummifer
The challenge …
– 7.43 billion humans in 2015 (09/06/16)
– 9.6 billion humans by 2050 (UN, 2014)
– To feed the human population in 2050 we will require food supplies to increase by 60% globally, and 100% in developing countries (FAO, 2011)
16 billion
10 billion
6 billion
Human population is beyond
the earth’s carrying capacity?
Global, regional and national food insecurity
Earth Policy Institute (2013)
CWR
Climate change has changed the game
CWR may hold one key to human survival • Wide genetic diversity of adaptive traits
• Tried, proven, but still largely untapped
• Technological advances in application
2015 @ 12%/Oman 2020 @ 17.4%/Oman 2050 @ 2.3% of Oman
Climate change may reduce agricultural production by 2% each decade (IPCC, 2014),
while demand will increases 14% by 2050 (FAO, 2011)
Red List assessments of 572 native European CWR in 25 Annex I priority crop gene pools
- 16% of the species assessed are threatened or Near Threatened and 4% are Critically Endangered
Yet analysis of PGR ex situ collections found:
- Wild (CWR) taxa represent 10.5% of total germplasm accessions
- Castañeda et al. (2016) reviewed global ex situ holdings found
- ≈ ⅓ unconserved (no accessions in genebanks)
- ≈ ⅓ poorly conserved (<10 accessions)
- 72% are a high priority for collection
In situ CWR conservation is virtually non-existent
Many CWR are found in existing in situ protected areas, but they are not being actively monitored and managed
Only a handful of CWR active genetic reserves have been established: Triticum CWR in Israel; Zea perennis in Mexico; Solanum CWR in Peru; wild Coffee CWR in Ethiopia; and Beta patula in Madeira
None meet Iriondo et al. (2012) standard for In situ CWR conservation
Why crop wild relatives? CWR are threatened and poorly conserved
Crambe maritima
• Objective: to ensure maximum range of CWR genetic diversity is represented within the minimum number of in situ conservation sites / populations
• Complex goal - location, planning, establishment, management, monitoring and utilisation
• Methodologies: Gadgil et al. (1996), Safriel et al. (1997), Maxted et al. (1997) & Iriondo et al. (2008)
• “Genetic Reserve Conservation - the location, management and monitoring of genetic diversity in natural wild populations within defined areas designated for active, long-term conservation.” Maxted et al. (1997)
• Extra PA in situ conservation
In Situ CWR Conservation
El Haffe genetic reserve, Syria
Farmers field, Cyprus
Establishing CWR networks Numerous diverse approaches to in situ CWR
conservation
Basic geographic scope: – Individual site (population) – National network
– Regional network Holistic approach to
conservation
– Global network
Each actively conserves CWR diversity in situ in genetic reserves or less formal conservation sites, networks enhances conservation value, with ex situ storage for back-up and primary use
Bottom-up
National CWR Strategy for a CWR Network
Progress in Europe: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Rep., Finland, Greece, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom
Progress in outside Europe: Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan, Middle East, Mexico, Peru, Mauritius, India, South Africa, Zambia
Lizard Point, Cornwall
Exemplar: UK Priority CWR –
Inventory creation
UK Flora
4,793 taxa
CWR Inventory
223 taxa
Prioritisation
• England, Scotland, Wales and the
UK
• Involvement of stakeholders
• Selection of criteria:
Native status
Economic value of crop
Gene pool/taxon group
Red list threat status
Conservation designation
Fielder et al., (2015)
CWR Checklist
2,109 taxa (44% flora)
Exemplar: UK Priority CWR – Inventory
Sea beet, Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima Table 1 Summary of inventory of 223 priority CWR in UK (N = Native, A = Archaeophyte, Neo
= Neophyte)
Family No. of genera No. of species No. of infra-
specific taxa Native status
Alliaceae 1 10 3 N; Neo
Amaranthaceae 3 13 1 N; A; Neo
Apiaceae 3 2 4 N
Asparagaceae 1 2 N; Neo
Asteraceae 2 5 N; A; Neo
Betulaceae 1 2 N; Neo
Brassicaceae 8 10 5 N; A; Neo
Ericaceae 1 6 N; Neo
Fabaceae 8 59 8 N; A; Neo
Fagaceae 1 1 Neo
Geraniaceae 1 3 N; A
Grossulariaceae 1 8 N; Neo
Juglandaceae 1 1 Neo
Linaceae 1 2 1 N
Moraceae 2 2 Neo
Poaceae 20 39 9 N; A; Neo
Rosaceae 6 27 N; Neo
Totals 61 192 31
Sea Carrot, Daucus carota subsp.
gummifer
Wild asparagus, Asparagus prostratus Least lettuce, Lactuca saligna
Fielder et al., (2015)
Comparison of natural in situ CWR diversity with diversity sampled and conserved in situ or ex situ (Maxted et al., 2008; Ramírez-Villegas et al. 2010)
Exemplar: UK Priority CWR –
Ecogeography and Gap analysis
Step 1: Circumscription of target taxon and target area
Step 2: Natural in situ diversity
2a - Taxonomic diversity assessment
2b - Genetic diversity assessment
2c - Ecogeographic diversity assessment
2d - Threat assessment
Step 3: Current conservation
3a - In situ techniques
3b - Ex situ techniques
Step 4: Setting priorities for future conservation action
4a - In situ conservation priorities
4b - Ex situ conservation priorities
Sea pea, Lathyrus japonicus
subsp. maritimus
Exemplar: UK
Priority CWR –
Gap analysis
Where should we establish
genetic reserves for in situ
conservation?
Site 3:
Ceredigion
11 (99) taxa
Site 1:
Purbeck
124 (0) taxa
Site 2:
Cambridgeshire
17 (104) taxa
CWR complementarity analysis for the UK
Hannah Fielder with
Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima
Fielder et al., 2015
Regional CWR conservation strategies (e.g., Europe)
• European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) In Situ WG est. 2000
• Initiated EC-funded projects PGR Forum, AEGRO and PGR Secure
• Published CWR conservation in situ methodologies
www.pgrsecure.org
www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/working-groups/wild-species- conservation/
• CWR in situ conservation concept (March, 2015)
http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/fileadmin/templates/ecpg r.org/upload/WG_UPLOADS_PHASE_IX/WILD_SPECIES /Concept_for_in__situ_conservation_of_CWR_in_Euro pe.pdf
ECPGR Concept
for in situ conservation of
crop wild relatives in Europe
Nigel Maxted, Alvina Avagyan, Lothar Frese, José Iriondo,
Joana Magos Brehm, Alon Singer and Shelagh Kell
Endorsed by the ECPGR Steering Committee in March 2015
Maxted et al., 2013, 2015
Global CWR conservation strategies
Global sites identified for in situ CWR conservation
Vincent et al., 2017
1,392 CWR species
from 194 gene pools,
representing 37 families
and 109 genera
Global Crop Diversity Trust Project - http://www.cwrdiversity.org/checklist/
Recommendations 1 CWR, CC and Policy
• Policy imperative to feed 9.6 billion humans by 2050 (UN, 2014)
• This requires food supplies to increase by 60% globally, and 100% in developing countries (FAO, 2011)
• Acknowledged in policy edicts, CBD Strategic Goals, CBD GSPC, IT, FAO GPA, UN GGSD, EU Parliament Feeding 10 Billion people, CAP Reform, + Gen. Res. Prep. Action
• Does policy effectively turn into action? • No EU agency has responsibility for CWR
• Weak ECPGR without a realistic funding base
• GEN RES has limited funds
• H2020 needs a more applied focus
Need to establish a clearer policy context for In situ CWR conservation in Europe
Food riots!
The link between intensifying inequality, debt, climate
change, fossil fuel dependency and the global food
crisis is undeniable Guardian 06.03.2013
Recommendations 2 Bridging gaps between stakeholder communities
a. Planning and actual implementation of conservation priorities;
b. Conservation in situ and ex situ;
c. Existing sectorial networking between biodiversity and agrobiodiversity stakeholders;
d. Implementation of local, national, regional and global CWR conservation;
e. Conservation of CWR diversity, characterization, and its supply and end-user application;
f. Awareness, valuation, governance and policy related to CWR conservation and use.
Imperative to bring diverse stakeholder communities together to plan and implement systematic conservation!
Recommendations 3 Truly complementary conservation
• Ford-Lloyd & Maxted (1993) stressed the need for
complementary conservation in and ex situ, widely accepted;
• However in Europe ≈ 99% of funding & technical resources is
spent on ex situ alone;
• Why?:
a. Science of ex situ conservation well advanced, straightforward
and relatively cheap;
b. Hawkes (1991) concluded in situ was in its infancy, no longer the
case;
c. In situ conservation requires diverse new collaborations, complex
and time-consuming;
d. Users have been able to gain relatively easy access to the
germplasm and traits they require from genebanks ….
Valid points, but increasingly CWR use will be limited by availability
and we can’t rely on ex situ alone, in situ and ex situ together would
be better therefore re-balancing is required
Re-balance conservation strategies (without detriment to ex situ)!
$120 billion toward increased crop yields per year (PwC, 2013)
Aegilops speltoides (B-genome ) Wheat
Recommendations 3 Truly complementary conservation: integration not competition!
Maxted and Palmé (2015)
Recommendations 4 CWR conservation planning • Scientific and pragmatic imperative to
effectively conserve the broadest possible range of taxonomic and genetic CWR diversity using complementary techniques
• How do we plan conservation in terms of CC • Research relative threat of CC on CWR
distribution (range) and diversity (taxa & genetic diversity – identify threat associated factors
• Prioritisation criteria • Know what traits users want, in the short, medium and long term,
• Most threatened taxa or traits
• Gap analysis methodology applied,
• Establishment of in situ and ex situ goals
• Climate proof goals prior to implementation, realise some population will go extinct so conserve ex situ
• CC time scale sensitivity 0-20 yrs, 21-50 yrs, etc.
• National, regional and global CWR population and site networks for CC resilient sites network / monitoring sites
• Assisted migration feasibility (sanctuaries & stepping stones)
• We must find the resource required?
Recommendations 5 Implement systematic in situ CWR conservation • We have the skills to conserve the broadest
possible range of taxonomic and genetic CWR
diversity using complementary techniques;
– We have quality assured guidelines for CWR in
situ genetic reserves (Iriondo et al., 2009), we
know to implement climate smart conservation;
– We have evidence-based case studies in
Portugal, Norway and UK of how to apply
guidelines;
– Expanding evidence-based case studies to
other European countries;
– Spin-off of Crop Trust ex situ project we know
global priority sites where to establish CWR in
situ genetic reserves (Vincent et al. 2016).
• However need to link CWR diversity, its
systematic conservation and its supply to end-
user
Preliminary analysis of top 50 global CWR locations: Vincent et al. (2016)
Implement CWR in situ conservation,
regional and national networks!
Recommendations 6 Resolving the in situ CWR conservation / use problem
• Conventionally CWR are obtained by breeders, farmers and other users from ex situ genebanks, but does this unnecessarily limit use?
• Argue that CWR in situ genetic reserves is untenable without active link to user – users will only sustain conservation if it is seen as useful;
• How? – Novel omics approaches to characterization
and evaluation;
– Predictive characterization for mining genetic resources;
– End user-orientated informatics (e.g. GLIS + extension).
• Establish a modus operandi for the routine use of CWR diversity found in in situ genetic reserves!
Recommendations 7 CWR and Improved Breeders Access • Commercial imperative to produce enhanced
cultivars that address changing consumer and environmental demands
• What are breeders goals in terms of CC • Yield stability
• Water use efficiency,
• heat tolerance & drought resistance,
• resistance or tolerance to disease and pest, but
• wide portfolio of genetic diversity
• Breeders have recently substantially increased CWR use, (a) Nos CWR taxa being used, (b) crops using CWR and (c) range of traits derived from CWR (Maxted & Kell, 2009)
• How do we improve breeders use CWR? • PPP pre-breeding projects
• Novel omics approaches to characterization and evaluation;
• Predictive characterization for mining genetic resources;
• End user-orientated informatics (e.g. GLIS + other)
Facilitate breeders access to CWR diversity
Beta vulgaris subsp. maritima
Sugarbeet
Conserved CWR
Diversity
Recommendations 8 CWR and improved breeders / farmer usage • What limits breeders/farmer access to
CWR Availability of CWR taxa / diversity,
Availability of C / E data,
Access and benefit issues,
Resources for pre-breeding and PPB
• How are breeding companied preparing for the impact of CC?
• How do we improve breeders/ farmer usage? Ensure CWR diversity is conserved /
available;
Try to predict what material breeder & farmers will require;
Easier transfer of CWR traits, gene engineering and editing;
Clarify access and benefit issues and promote PPP relationships
Provide farmers with pre-bred material for PPB
• Promote Breeders/farmer usage of CWR diversity
Recommendations 9 Genetic resource centres not genebanks
• Why CWR in in situ genetic reserves because of management control;
• Genetic reserves are likely to be established in existing protected areas a. sites have long-term conservation ethos so
less prone to hasty management changes,
b. relatively easy to amend existing site management plan,
c. Avoids cost of establishing novel conservation sites;
• But it does require collaboration between the biodiversity and agro-biodiversity communities;
• Who are partners: – Biodiversity = protected area managers (+
local communities)
– Agro-biodiversity = ? (academics + genebanks)
• GRC refocus their attention on meeting users needs, not just genebanks, whether from ex situ or in situ sources
ADDED RESOURCES WILL BE NEEDED!
Users
GRC is the foundation of CWR
(PGR) conservation and use
A proposal To establish the N.I. Vavilov CWR Network of in situ conservation
Preliminary analysis of top 50 global CWR locations: Vincent et al. (2016)
The first step:
a European Network of In Situ CWR sites by 2025!