Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild

Relatives in Europe

Marianne Mitchell

Meeting Targets

• CBD – Global Strategy for Plant Conservation:– Target 9: ‘70 per cent of the genetic diversity

of crops and other major socio-economically valuable plant species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained’

– Target 13: ‘The decline of plant resources, and associated indigenous and local knowledge innovations and practices, that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, halted.’

Aims

• Create regional red list assessments for wild crop relatives in selected European countries using available data.

• Highlight problems– Data – Vagrancy– Introductions

Background

• Red lists – determines relative risk of extinction

• Assessment – uses IUCN global and regional criteria

• Categories and criteria – Categories are awarded based on the fulfilment of threshold criteria using population size, reduction and location data.

Creating an

assessment

Search for data

Web sites Atlases Red lists Databases Floras Contacts

Input into a database

Is there enough data for

assessment?

Apply global criteria

Is the species endemic?

Apply regional criteria

Has the taxa been assessed as threatened?

Record assessment in database

Construct a red list report

No

Yes

Yes

No

Record a

s D

D

Yes

Finish

No

Finding the data - UK

• New atlas of the British and Irish Flora

• British Red Data Books. 1. Vascular plants

• NBN Gateway – BSBI data

• Interactive flora of the British Isles

• UK BAP

Finding the data - Holland

• Red lists• Heukels’ Interactieve

Flora van Nederland• Floron

Finding the data – On the web

• Portugal – SIPNAT• ARKive• Germany – Big Flora• Poland - ATPOL

Finding the data - Redlists

• Red lists compiled using 1994 categories:– Poland (2001)– Sweden (2000)– Finland (2001)– Spain(2000)

• Alternative Red lists:– Belgium– Denmark– Latvia– Holland– Germany

Finding the data – PGR Forum

• Taxon Data sheets

• Contacting partners:– Germany– Spain– Poland

• Group e-mail

Dealing with data

• Databases:– Access

• Online– PGR Forum

Scale

10 - 2x 2km = 40km2

4 - 10x 10km = 400km2

From the British Red Data book there are only 13 1x1km = 13km2

Koeleria vallesiana

NT

LC

VU - D2

• Differences in scale = Different assessment?

Assessments

• UK - 7 CR, 14 EN, 20 VU, 19 NT• Holland – 2 CR, 13 EN, 31 NT, 8 NT• Portugal – 3 VU, 1 NT• Updated red lists that use outdated criteria

– Sweden– Spain– Finland

• Using Taxon Data sheets– Spain– Belgium– Portugal– Lithuania

Updating old assessments

1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001 1994 2001

CR-A1CR-A2 (if on-going), EN-A1 (if ceased)

CR-B1 CR-B1/2 a CR-C1 CR-C1 CR-D1 CR-D1

CR-A2 CR-A3 CR-B2 CR-B1/2 b CR-C2a CR-C2a(i) EN-D1 EN-D1

EN-A1EN-A2 (if on-going), VU-A1 (if ceased)

CR-B3 CR-B1/2 c CR-C2b CR-C2a(ii) VU-D1 VU-D1

EN-A2 EN-A3 EN-B1 EN-B1/2 a EN-C1 EN-C1 VU-D2

N/A change in AOO threshold sq 100km

to 20 sq km (locations 5 remains

same)

VU-A1N/A threshold

changed from 20-30%

EN-B2 EN-B1/2 b EN-C2a EN-C2a(i)

VU-A2N/A threshold

changed from 20-30%

EN-B3 EN-B1/2 c EN-C2b EN-C2a(ii) 1994 2001

VU-B1 VU-B1/2 a VU-C1 VU-C1 CR-E CR-EVU-B2 VU-B1/2 b VU-C2a VU-C2a(i) EN-E EN-EVU-B3 VU-B1/2 c VU-C2b VU-C2a(ii) VU-E VU-E

E

A B C D

NA species

• IUCN category NA applies to species that are:– Alien or Neophyte– Vagrant

But…

• Some of these species are threatened.

NA species - Example

• Avena strigosa a casual species decreased from 243 hectads pre 1970 to just 39 (84% decrease)

• Decline due to cessation of cultivation.

• Probably arose in cultivation so while it isn’t native it has no known natural range

NAVU – A2(b)

Should the

species be NA?

Yes / Don’t know

Is the species a neophyte?

Is the species a casual?

Does the species persist in some areas of the region?

Is the source of propagule threatened?

Is the source wild or genetically variable?

Does more than 20% of the global population occur within the region?

Is the regional population known to be genetically dissimilar to the native?

Is the native range stable or increasing?

Is the native range known?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No / Don’t know

No

No

No

No

No

No

No / Don’t know

Yes / Don’t know

Yes / Don’t know

No / Don’t know

Yes / Don’t know

Yes / Don’t know

N/A Assess

Assess

Assess

Assess

Assess

Assess

Is the species a native or archaeophyte ?

Assess

No

Yes / Don’t know

Confirmation

• Interpretation of data may differ, discussing the assessment with others can help to offer confirmation of the assessment.

• In the UK the JNCC are just about to bring out the Redlists for all of the UK flora:– Agreed on 25/41 – differences due to extra

data and in some cases disagreement.

Reports

• Species given a threatened category need a report explaining why this category was given.

Summary

• Assessments for crop wild relatives depend on:– Data availability– Quality– Scale– Interpretation

• Native / Alien

Users• IUCN• PGR Forum• Conservation community

– NGO’s– Conservation projects– Governmental conservation programmes

• Public– Educational– Conservation

• 2010 Biodiversity Target (CBD)

Continuation

• Completing Europe– More data available or becoming available– Identification of gaps

• Overview of state of European CWR

Achieving CBD targets 2010

National Red lists form baselines for future conservation assessments

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the many contributors to this work including; Nigel Maxted, Brian Ford-Lloyd, Maria Scholten, Shelagh Kell, Craig Hilton-Taylor and the partners of the PGR Forum.

Country Source

Atlas IUCN Red List Other Red List Flora Other Websites

Belgiumhttp://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/sibw

  http://nl.wikipedia.org

   

Czech Republic     www.natur.cuni.cz/CBS/redlist.pdf

   

Denmark   www.sns.dk/pdf/rodlis.pdf

  http://www.billeder.dnlb.dk/

 

Finland  Rassi et al. (2001)

     

France http://sophy.u-3mrs.fr/PSHTM/flsidi20.htm

  Olivier et al. (1995)

   

Germany www.floraweb.de, www.big-flora.de

 BfN (1996)

   

Hollandwww.floron.nl

 http://nl.wikipedia.org, Van der Meijden, R., (1996)

Van der Meijden (1999)

 

Italy    Conti et al. (1992)

   

Latvia    Andrusaitis (2003)

   

Poland www3.uj.edu.pl/IB/CHRONPOL/index.html

Kazmierczakowa, R. & Zarzycki, K. (2001)

     

Portugal http://www.icn.pt/sipnat/sipnat3.html

       

Spain www.programanthos.org

Aizpuru et al. (2000)     

Sweden   www-umea.slu.se/ MiljoData/webrod/SOKNING.cfm

 http://linnaeus.nrm.se/flora/welcome.html

 

UK www.searchnbn.org & Preston et al. (2002) Wigginton (1999)

 Stace (1997) www.arkive.org

Europe www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/english/botany/afe  UN (1991)

  Tutin et al. (1964)

 

Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild

Relatives in Europe

Marianne Mitchell