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!