1 / 26

Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe

Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe. Marianne Mitchell. Meeting Targets. CBD – Global Strategy for Plant Conservation:

kasa
Download Presentation

Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe

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. Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe Marianne Mitchell

  2. 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.’

  3. Aims • Create regional red list assessments for wild crop relatives in selected European countries using available data. • Highlight problems • Data • Vagrancy • Introductions

  4. 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.

  5. Creating an assessment

  6. 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

  7. Finding the data - Holland • Red lists • Heukels’ Interactieve Flora van Nederland • Floron

  8. Finding the data – On the web • Portugal – SIPNAT • ARKive • Germany – Big Flora • Poland - ATPOL

  9. 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

  10. Finding the data – PGR Forum • Taxon Data sheets • Contacting partners: • Germany • Spain • Poland • Group e-mail

  11. Dealing with data • Databases: • Access • Online • PGR Forum

  12. NT LC VU - D2 Scale • Differences in scale = Different assessment? 10 - 2x 2km = 40km2 4 - 10x 10km = 400km2 From the British Red Data book there are only 13 1x1km = 13km2 Koeleria vallesiana

  13. 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

  14. Updating old assessments

  15. NA species • IUCN category NA applies to species that are: • Alien or Neophyte • Vagrant But… • Some of these species are threatened.

  16. VU – A2(b) 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 NA

  17. Should the species be NA?

  18. 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.

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

  20. Summary • Assessments for crop wild relatives depend on: • Data availability • Quality • Scale • Interpretation • Native / Alien

  21. Users • IUCN • PGR Forum • Conservation community • NGO’s • Conservation projects • Governmental conservation programmes • Public • Educational • Conservation • 2010 Biodiversity Target (CBD)

  22. Continuation • Completing Europe • More data available or becoming available • Identification of gaps • Overview of state of European CWR

  23. Achieving CBD targets 2010 National Red lists form baselines for future conservation assessments

  24. 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.

  25. Country Source Atlas IUCN Red List Other Red List Flora Other Websites Belgium http://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) Holland www.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)

  26. Regional Red List Assessment of Crop Wild Relatives in Europe Marianne Mitchell

More Related