1 / 23

Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto

Living Collections of Botanic Gardens as a Means of Ex Situ Conservation - A Case Study on African Violets. Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto. Premises. up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered in situ conservation is the norm, but... GSPC target VIII

alexa-brooks
Download Presentation

Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Living Collections of Botanic Gardens as a Means ofEx Situ Conservation- A Case Study on African Violets Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto

  2. Premises • up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered • in situ conservation is the norm, but... • GSPC target VIII • ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs • advantages and disadvantages have been brought up

  3. pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:

  4. pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:

  5. ...premises • up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered • in situ conservation is the norm, but... • GSPC target VIII • ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs • advantages and disadvantages have been brought up • BUT: hardly any analyses made!

  6. Aims • to evaluate and develop methods of evaluation • to answer the following questions: • is species diversity high but genetic diversity low? • do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation? • is maintenance possible? • is genetic integrity at risk? • is multiple use a reality?

  7. Material & Methods • African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.)

  8. S. diplotricha S. grotei Material & Methods

  9. Material & Methods • African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.) • 4 of 5 most important Saintpaulia collections: UPP, ED, MEI, HKI • study of collections and collection databases • cross-check of accession data • assessment of quality of origin data • evaluation of maintenance & display

  10. Preliminary results 1. Is species diversity high? • of 30 known taxa, 27 existed in the studied gardens (+ one as seeds) • YES!

  11. Preliminary results 2. Is genetic diversity low? • number of accessions per sp. per garden varied: 1 – 33 • recommended minimum is 50 (-100) • total number of accessions: 183 • recommended minimum would be 1,500 • YES! BUT: • clonal accessions only few

  12. Preliminary results

  13. Preliminary results 3. Do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation? • 2 misidentifactions among 183 accessions • 26 accessions lacked data on origin, 3 had only ”wild-collected”, all others at least region of origin • HKI had ”some confusions”, ED had one, others none • NO!

  14. Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? • mostly wild-collected accessions: human-induced hybrids not possible • origin data mostly good • we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks

  15. CLASS 1: the exact collection site, down to the level of population/stand, can be found on the basis of the information, e.g.: • Kenya, Kilifi District, Kacharoni, 0328 S, 03945 E, 85 m, lithophyte on limestone rocks, in shade of riverine forest. Coll. B. Bytebier 28.09.1993, coll. number 107. • CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information, e.g.: • Tanzania, Morogoro, Nguru Mts., Kanga F.R., 1100 m. Coll. T. Pocs. • CLASS 3: the region, district, or mountain area of the collection site known, e.g.: • Tanzania, Lushoto District, East Usambara Mts. Coll. S. Mather, coll. number 2. • CLASS 4: accession registered as collected from the wild, but site data lacking, e.g.: • Tanzania. Coll. S. Mather. • CLASS 5: no origin data, but accession can be determined as a certain species (i.e., not a cultivar)

  16. Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? • mostly wild-collected accessions • origin data mostly good • we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks • variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1 CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information

  17. Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? • mostly wild-collected accessions • origin data mostly good • we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks • variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1 • Saintpaulia easy to propagate from cuttings • NO!

  18. Preliminary results 5. Is maintenance possible? • one pot needs 121 cm2 • 30 taxa  50 pots  121 cm2 = c. 18 m2 • not susceptible to pests, easy to grow • fallen & rooting leaves, and spontaneous seedlings a small problem • YES!

  19. Preliminary results 6. Is multiple use a reality? • showy display in HKI • research in HKI and ED • additional info on conservation nowhere • NO!

  20. Conclusions • Expected drawbacks not too severe, except for lack of genetic diversity. • Expected benefits partly true, partly not. • Results probably depend on plant group. • Spatial requirements can be solved through networking.

  21. Conclusions • The evaluation methods used are a good base, but phylogenetics and population genetics would refine the results. and • Analyses of the real value of live collections should be continued and collections developed according to results

  22. Thank you!

More Related