Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals

1. National Botanic Garden of Belgium (NBGB) Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals Dave Aplin, Responsible for Science and Horticulture [Glasshouse Collections] david.aplin@br.fgov.be

2. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals Plant collections in botanic gardens are extremely varied. Decades of plant acquisitions reflect research and personal interests, of which many may be redundant. Regular, critical evaluation of living collections should be an increasingly important activity, to meet the current demands of our gardens etc. Ignoring this procedure will weaken of the word ‘Botanic’ in our institutes’ names and reduce our effectiveness. This is especially true in space-limited areas. Conclusions Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

3. Maintaining our own ideals: the art of practising what we preach Botanic gardens increasingly required to justify their existence to fund-raising bodies, trustees and the public. The NBGB is not unlike other gardens of similar age. Areas are reaching capacity while increasing costs impinge on collection management. Plant collections at the NBGB began over a century ago. Currently, 17,000 taxa are curated with the indoor collection alone boasting c.10,000 taxa. Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

4. Living Collection statistics: an overview of the collections at Meise number of: indoors outdoors total plants 28,280 ------ ------ accessions 13,643 11,467 25,051 taxa 9,862 7,533 17,216 species 7,787 4,923 12,710 genera 2,120 1,367 3,170 families 277 232 338 cites taxa accessions 3,037 44 3,081(12%) cultivar accessions 1,374 2,467 3,841(15%) percentage (accessions): verified & id: 37% from wild: 22% Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

5. Living Collection statistics: Meise’s ‘big five’ largest families taxa accessions % v. & id. % wild Cactaceae 1642 2430 19% 11% Orchidaceae 1057 1885 48% 31% Liliaceae 716 1146 29% 16% Crassulaceae 700 912 35% 12% Asteraceae 529 663 39% 27% Rubiaceae (11th) 294 461 24% 63% Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

6. Evaluating a Living Collection: some preconditions to consider A thorough evaluation will take an enormous amount of time and effort involving a range of stakeholders. Its benefits, however, should be clear. Pre-requisites to evaluation: The institute should have a Collection Policy. Collection data is stored in a database. Confidence in that data. Data can be extracted to provide a range of holdings statistics. Quantitative statistics are the quickest and easiest way to obtain an insight into a collection. However, it must be followed by qualitative analysis. Few collection statistics have been published. General guidelines for targets are difficult to determine. The RBG Edinburgh [Sibbaldia, 1, 2, 3] offers a notable exception. Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

7. Evaluating a Living Collection: supporting targets and legislation The main purposes of an evaluation process is to increase the botanical value of our holdings and to aid ex situ conservation. An increase in botanical wealth will enable an increase in ‘botanical performance’ And thus contributing to: CBD GSPC European Community Biodiversity Strategy The European Plant Conservation Strategy The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

8. Evaluation at differing scales: an insight into the collections Evaluating a collection is a huge task. There are countless institute-specific ways this may be done. ‘most’ and ‘least’ important plants overview of all plant families a specific family a genus Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

9. Evaluation - case study one: our ‘most’ and ‘least’ important plants Criteria: Number: % of collection IUCN 1997 (taxa) 641 3.7% IUCN 2001 (taxa) 656 3.8% CITES 1 (taxa) 199 <1% CITES 2 (taxa) 2,884 12% recalcitrant taxa ?,??? ??% Cultivars (accessions) 3,841 15% Cultivars (plants [indoors]) 3,323 12% Ornamental plants made way for research specimens in the glasshouses Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

10. Evaluation - case study two: identifying our most vulnerable families Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

11. Evaluation - case study two: identifying our most vulnerable taxa Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

12. Evaluation - case study two: identifying our most vulnerable taxa 8% Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

13. Evaluation - case study three: a prickly dilemma genera taxa accessions % v. & id. % wild Cactaceae 200 1642 2430 19% 11% • c. 800 accessions require taxonomic updates and c. 2,000 plants need new labelling. • Taxonomic updates are normally done on the basis of correct identification. But only 1 in every 5 has been examined. • Currently, the Cactaceae take up 4 collection glasshouses and a large public display house. No recent research conducted. • Yet, the majority of the plants reside in CITES 1 & 2, but only 11% are wild collected. Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

14. Evaluation - case study four: in need of a Gasteria guru representation on the benches species accessions plants % v. & id. % wild Gasteria 56 115 246 0.6% = 1 16.7% • According to Van Jaarsveld (1994), only 16 species of Gasteria exist, these comprised of many synonyms. • Only 1 accession is verified. So updating taxonomic updates also involves a verification process which is difficult for a genus that exhibits great morphological plasticity. • We seriously have to consider the ‘value’ and purposes of this ‘collection’ to our institute before taking any action. Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions

15. Ex-situ conservation: potentially, our most valuable contribution... conservation Ex situ The fact these two words are married is fundemental to: Target 8: GSPC Article 9: CBD Introduction 1 Collections at Meise Evaluation Case Studies acknowledgments Ex-situ cons. Conclusions

16. Ex-situ conservation: potentially, our most valuable contribution... Evaluation process willfree-up room and labour that could be used for ex situ conservation. Although seed banks are extremely useful, they do not represent the solution to ex situ conservation in isolation. Not all seeds can be stored. Difficulties may arise that hamper the successful cultivation of germinated plants. The botanical community therefore needs to enter dialogue with all relevant stakeholders and consider potential protocols for best practice techniques. Initially concentrate on our own, threatened, European flora. Introduction 1 Collections at Meise Evaluation Case Studies acknowledgments Ex-situ cons. Conclusions

17. Ex-situ conservation: getting Europe’s house in order... 2 – 3,000 species are threatened on our continent. 800 facing global extinction. Need for a quantitative as well as a qualitative gap analysis of the each threatened species status in botanic gardens. Implementation of IPEN will significantly aid the traceability of specific accessions and enable us to see more clearly duplications in genetic material between gardens. Introduction 1 Collections at Meise Evaluation Case Studies acknowledgments Ex-situ cons. Conclusions

18. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals Concluding remarks We believe that evaluation is an important part of curation management. The result of such an undertaking will strengthen the word ‘BOTANIC’ in our institutes’ names. Failure to do so will result in a large percentage of holdings having no more botanical value than plants from a local garden centre - “Stamp collections”. As we look towards 2010 and beyond, it is vital that each and every garden represented here today practices what we preach. Time has come for an International Coordinated Action, to place living collections at the heart of legitimate ex situ conservation. Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions acknowledgments

19. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals Acknowledgments Thierry Vanderborght – for complex data retrieval from in-house database LIVCOL Viviane Leyman, Gert Ausloos, Jan Rammeloo and Delegates of Eurogard, 2006 – for informative discussions Dave Aplin, Responsible for Science and Horticulture [Glasshouse Collections] david.aplin@br.fgov.be Visit us at: www.botanicgarden.be Introduction Collections at Meise Evaluation Case studies Conclusions Acknowledgments