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)