Date post: | 28-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | margaretmargaret-barber |
View: | 222 times |
Download: | 4 times |
Setting conservation priorities for Crop Wild Relatives in Portugal
Joana Magos BrehmBrian Ford-LloydNigel MaxtedAmélia Loução
JARDIM BOTÂNICO – MUSEU NACIONALDE HISTÓRIA NATURAL(PORTUGAL)
Contents
Brief introduction Objectives Methodology Results Advantages and
constraints
Problems encountered Conclusions References Acknowledgments
Objectives
To compare different methods of prioritising
CWRs at a country level.
To be an aid in the establishment of conservation
priorities within CWRs for Portugal.
Brief introduction
~ 3000 native sp. (mainland) (Ministry of Agriculture,
1995).
Wealth of CWRs and other wild species with
immediate or potential economic interest (as
agricultural, ornamental, forage, aromatic and medicinal
plants).
Portugal...
1. Point scoring procedure MER (2000) – risk of extinction of wildlife
Sapir et al. (2003) – red numbers for endangered plant species in Israel (rarity, declining rate and habitat vulnerability, attractivity, distribution type)
Dhar et al. (2000) – medicinal plants in the Indian Himalaya region (use value index, sensitivity index, importance value index)
Millsap et al. (1990) – assess conservation status of vertebrates
Lunney et al. (1996) – point scoring procedure with weighting (mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians in New South Wales, Australia)
Brief introduction
Major methods for prioritising Genetic Resources/Biodiversity
Brief introduction
Major methods for prioritising Genetic Resources/Biodiversity
2. Ranking system
NatureServe (2001) – conservation actions or any taxonomic
entity, North America
Pashley et al. (2004) – birds, North America
3. Rule-based system IUCN (2001) – threat criteria and categories
CITES (www.cites.org)
1. Database building and Criteria
2. Point Scoring Procedure (PSP)
3. Point Scoring Procedure with Weighting (PSPW)
4. Simple Ranking System (SRS)
5. Compound Ranking System (CRS)
Methodology
1. Database building and Criteria
Starting point: PGR Forum list of CWRs for Portugal (Mansfeld’s and Euro+Med database)
Adopted taxonomy:
Iberian Flora (Talavera et al., 1999-2000)
National Flora (Franco, 1971-2003) Synonyms:
Iberian Flora (Talavera et al., 1999-2000)
National Floras (Franco, 1971-2003; Coutinho, 1939)
Flora Andaluccía (Valdés et al., 1987)
Flora Europaea (Tutin et al., 1964-1988)
Methodology
1. Database construction and Criteria
Methodology
Economic Importance
• Crop category • Production of related crop (€)• Production of related crop (tons)• Surface of cultivation (ha)• Traditional products• # grown varieties
Actual Economic Value
Potential Economic Value• Potential uses
Ethnobotanical Value
• National uses (wild harvested species)
Threatened status • Red Listing assessment (IUCN, 2001, 2003)
Genus level
Species level
Species level
Methodology
Legislation
Conservation status • Ex situ
• In situ (active)
National distribution • # provinces
Global Distribution • Portugal; Iberian Peninsula; Iberian Peninsula+North Africa; Mediterranean; Europe/World
• Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC) • Bern Convention (Appendix 1)• Euro Council (1977/1983, 1983)• Other international legislation• National legislation
1. Database construction and Criteria
• Iberian Flora• Iberian Flora• Flora Europaea
• Aguiar et al. (2001)• Mitchell (2004)
• Legal documents• ICN (Natura 2000 Network)• EUFORGEN
• National statistics (INE, Portugal)• FAO Stats• National Catalogue of Varieties
• General ethnobotanical literature on uses
• EURISCO
• National ethnobotanical literature on uses
SCORES
CRITERIA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Actual Economic Importance (crop category)
No uses Other uses
Ornamental Aromatic and
Medicines
Forestry Oils and
Fibres
Fodder/Forage
Food
Potential Economic Value
# Potential uses
No known uses
1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15
Cultural Value
# National uses
No known uses
1 - 2 3 - 4 5 - 6 7 - 8 9 - 10 11 - 12 13 - 15
Threatened Status NE EX DD LC NT VU EN CR
Conservation Status
Ex situ With seed accessions
Without seed accessions
In situ (active)
With conservation projects
Without conservation
projects
2. Point scoring procedure (PSP)
Methodology
SCORES
CRITERIA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Legislation Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC)
Not listed Not priority sp. - Annex II or IV or both- Annex V
Priority sp.- Annex II or IV or both- Annex V
Bern Convention
Appendix 1 (1979)
Not listed Listed
Euro Council (1977/1983, 1983)
Not listed Listed:- 1977/198- 1983
Other international legislation
Not listed Listed
National legislation Not listed Listed
Methodology2. Point scoring procedure (PSP)
2. Point scoring procedure (PSP)
SCORES
CRITERIA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Global Distribution
No data Europe/
World
Mediterranean
Iberian Peninsula+North Africa+1 country
Iberian Peninsula+North Africa
Iberian Peninsula+1 country
Iberia Peninsula
Portugal
National distribution
No data 11 - 9 provinces
8 – 6 prov.
5 prov. 4 prov. 3 prov. 2 prov. 1 prov.
Σ (Actual Economic Importance + Potential Economic Value + Cultural Value + Threatened Status + Ex situ + In situ + Habitat’s Directive + Bern Convention + Euro Council + Other international legislation + National legislation + Global Distribution + National distribution)
Highest scores - Priorities for conservation
Methodology
3. Point scoring procedure with weighting (PSPW)Actual
Economic Importance
Ethnobotanical Value
Potential Economic Value
Threatened Status
Conservation status
Ex situIn situ (active)
Highest scores - Priorities for conservation
Global Distribution
National Distribution
Legislation
Other international legislation
Euro Council
Habitat’s Directive
Bern Convention
National legislation
10 %10 %20 % 15 %10 %
15 % 10 % 10 %
Methodology
4. Simple Ranking System (SRS)
Production (€)
Production (tons)
Surface (ha)
Traditional products
# grown varieties
Potential uses
National uses
Threatened status
Ex situ conservation
In situ conservation
Habitat’s Directive
Bern Convention
Euro Council
Other international legislation
National legislation
Global distribution
National distribution
IND
IVID
UA
L C
RIE
TR
IA
RANKING ORDER
55
66
44
2211
33
11
44
2233
55
66
77
High priority
High priority
High priority
11
22
33
Methodology
MethodologyAccess Database Query
1st 2nd 3rd
5. Compound ranking system (CRS)
ECONOMIC VALUE
Production (€)Individual Ranking
ΣActual Economic Value Ranking (AEV) Σ
Total Economic Value Ranking (TEV)
Any Economic Value? (Y/N)
Production (tons) “”
Surface (ha) “”
Traditional products “”
# grown varieties
“”
Potential uses
Potential Economic Value Ranking (PEV)
ETHNOBOTANICAL VALUE
National usesEthnobotanical Value Ranking Any Cultural
Value? (Y/N)
THREATENED STATUS
Threatened statusThreatened Status Ranking Any Threat
Category (CR, EN, VU)? (Y/N)
CONSERVATION STATUS
Ex situ conservation “” ΣConservation Status Ranking
Being Conserved? (Y/N)In situ conservation
“”
LEGISLATION
Habitat’s Directive “”
ΣLegislation Ranking
Affected by any Legislation? (Y/N)
Bern Convention “”
Euro Council “”
Other international legislation
“”
National legislation “”
DISTRIBUTIONGlobal distribution Global Distribution Ranking
National distribution National Distribution Ranking
Level 2 Level 4Level 1 Level 3
5. Compound ranking system (CRS)
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Level 4
Level 1
Level 2
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Level 4
Level 4Level 1
Level 4
Level 3
Level 1
Level 3
Level 2
Level 4
Level 3 Level 2
Results
The database
~ 57% CWRs (including aromatic and medicinal plants)
(1721 sp., 463 genera)
~ 6% medicinal and aromatic plants (191 sp., 43 genera)
~ 10% also wild harvested plants (296 sp., 45 genera)
Results Comparison between 4 methods
Point scoring procedure with weighting (PSPW)
Point scoring procedure (PSP)
1. Production €2. Global distribution3. Threat assessment4. National uses
Results
1. Threat assessment2. Global distribution3. National uses4. Production €
1. Global distribution2. National uses3. Threat assessment4. Production €
Simple Ranking System (SRS) Level 1
Results
1. Threat assessment2. TEV3. Global distribution4. Conservation status5. National uses6. National distribution7. Legislation
1. TEV2. Threat assessment3. Global distribution4. Conservation status5. National uses6. National distribution7. Legislation
1. Global distribution2. TEV3. Threat assessment4. Conservation status5. National uses6. National distribution7. Legislation
Compound Ranking System (CRS) Level 3 Level 1
Results
Economic value: YCategory of threat: YBeing conserved: NLegislation: YNational uses: YIberian Peninsula
Economic value: YCategory of threat: YBeing conserved: NLegislation: YNational uses: NIberian Peninsula
Economic value: YCategory of threat: YBeing conserved: NLegislation: N National uses: Y3 provincesIberian Peninsula+North Africa
Economic value: YCategory of threat: YBeing conserved: NLegislation: N National uses: Y1 provinceEurope/World
Economic value: YCategory of threat: NBeing conserved: NLegislation: NNational uses: N2 provincesPortugal
Economic value: YCategory of threat: NBeing conserved: NLegislation: NNational uses: N1 provincePortugal
Economic value: YCategory of threat: NBeing conserved: NLegislation: YNational uses: NPortugal
Economic value: YCategory of threat: NBeing conserved: NLegislation: YNational uses: YPortugal
Compound Ranking System (CRS)Level 4
Level 1
Advantages and constraintsIN
COMMONCONSTRAINTS ADVANTAGES
Point scoring procedure (PSP)
★ Multiple criteria★ Time consuming (gather the data and format the database)★ Transparent
★ Static (absolute scores)★ Subjective (economic categories)★ Each criterion contributes the same “importance” to the final score
★ Pragmatic★ Excell spreadsheet/Access database
Point scoring procedure weighting (PSPW)
★ Static★ Subjective (economic categories + weight of each criterion)
★ Pragmatic★ Excell spreadsheet/Access database
Simple ranking system (SRS)
★ Sensitive to lack of data★ The use of individual criteria can give a wrong view of the reality★ Access database
★ Easy: to query (once the data is in the database), to include a wider range of criteria; to update whenever new data are gathered★ Flexible and adaptable to different users’ needs★ Objective★ Enables setting priorities according to very specific criteria
Compound ranking system (CRS)
★ Sensitive to lack of data★ Access database
★ Easy: to query (once the data is in the database), to include a wider range of criteria; to update whenever new data are gathered★ Flexible and adaptable to different users’ needs (different levels)★ Enables setting priorities at different levels of knowledge
Problems encountered
Inaccurate results for those species without a complete set of data
Time consuming
Quality of data
Unavailability of data: economic data and threat assessment ornamental and forestry species
General problems:
Taxonomy
Problems encounteredSpecific questions:
Ethnobotanical data (national uses): Economic value? Cultural
value?
When different uses of the related crop, should we consider the
most nationally economic important use or the use with high score? e. g. Pinus pinea – food and agriculture (pine nut) (7) or forestry (4)?
Medicinal and aromatic plants known to be small scale cultivated
and marketed
Are the criteria used enough?
Population biology data? Demographic data? Ecological data?
Genetic diversity? Genetic erosion and pollution? Recent and
potential threats? Climate change?
not included in any economical statistics
Summary
Different country’s needs / users’ needs
choose the criteria and the method that suits best
different results Different methods
The criteria used in setting conservation priorities tend to differ
with the user; any RS is better than the PSP methods because is
more adaptable to the users’ needs.
CRS, levels 1 and 4, is simpler than using the other levels and
seems to give good results although using Y/N criteria.
Whatever the method, priorities must be viewed as a working
hypotheses based on the best available information.
References• Aguiar, C.; Honrado, J.; Alves, P.; Barreto Caldas, F.; Henrique, N.; Janssen, J. and Sequeira, M. 2001. Terceira aproximação à lista da flora rara e a proteger no norte de Portugal Continental: II Gimnospérmicas e Angiospérmicas. 2º Congresso Nacional de Conservação da Natureza.
• Aguiar, C.; Honrado, J.; Alves, P.; Barreto Caldas, F.; Henrique, N.; Janssen, J. and Sequeira, M. 2001. Terceira aproximação à lista da flora rara e a proteger no norte de Portugal Continental: I Briófitas e Pteridófitas.
• Dhar, U.; Rawal, R. S. and Upreti, J. 2000. Setting priorities for conservation of medicinal plants - a case study in the Indian Himalaya. Biological Conservation 95:57-65.
• Lunney, D.; Curtin, A.; Ayers, D.; Cogger, H. G. and Dickman, C. R. 1996. An ecological approach to identifying the endangered fauna of New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 212–231.
• MER, 2000. Metodo de Evaluacion del Riesgo de Extincion de las Especies Silvestres en Mexico. Draft paper.
• Millsap, B. A.; Gore, J. A.; Runde, D. E. and Cerulean, S. I. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monographs 111: 1-57.
• Ministry of Agriculture 1995. Portugal: Country Report to the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources (Leipzig, 1996). Ministry of Agriculture, Oeiras.
• Mitchell, M. 2004. Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe. A thesis presented to the Faculty of Science of the University of Birmingham in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Conservation and Utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources. School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
• Pashley, D. N.; Beardmore, C. J.; Fitzgerald, J. A.; Ford, R. P.; Hunter, W. C.; Morrison, M. S. and Rosenberg, K. V. 2000. Partners In Flight: Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. American. Bird Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
• Sapir,Y; Shmida1, A. & Fragman, O. 2003. Constructing Red Numbers for setting conservation priorities of endangered plant species: Israeli flora as a test case. Journal for Nature Conservation 11: 91–107.
Acknowledgments
Maria Scholten (University of Birmingham, UK)
Shelagh Kell (University of Birmingham, UK)
Eliseu Bettencourt (EAN, Portugal)
Pedro Ivo Arriegas (ICN, Portugal)
António Flôr (PNSAC, Portugal)
Fátima Costa (JB/MNHN, Portugal)
Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE, Portugal)
Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal)
Setting conservation priorities for Crop Wild Relatives in Portugal
Joana Magos BrehmNigel MaxtedBrian Ford-LloydAmélia Loução
JARDIM BOTÂNICO – MUSEU NACIONALDE HISTÓRIA NATURAL(PORTUGAL)