Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards the selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation

  • Published:
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The signing and ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity has resulted in increased scientific and public interest in the conservation and utilisation of biological diversity. This has in turn triggered the need to develop more effective methodologies to conserve biological diversity for the benefit of all humanity. One of the first factors to be considered when conserving botanical diversity is the efficient and effective selection of the target taxa. The aim of this paper is not to set detailed priorities for the genetic conservation of the plant genetic resources of any particular crop or species complex, but to draw attention to the factors that should be considered when formulating priorities. The factors that are considered important when selecting plant genetic resource targets are: current conservation status; potential economic use; threat of genetic erosion; genetic distinctiveness; ecogeographic distribution; biological importance; cultural importance; cost, feasibility and sustainability; legislation; ethical and aesthetic considerations; and priorities of the conservation agency undertaking the conservation. Each of these factors is discussed in turn. Although it is not possible to provide a single methodology for the selection of plant genetic resource targets at this time, it is hoped that the consideration the factors discussed will make the selection of target taxa more object, make better use of the limited conservation resources and thus enhance the process of genetic conservation as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abramovitz, J.N., 1994. Trends in biodiversity investments. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment, 1995. Biodiversity: the UK steering group report. Volume 1: meeting the Rio challenge. Department of the Environment, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment, 1996. Towards a methodology for costing biodiversity targets in the UK. Department of the Environment, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J., 1989. Overview of recent extinctions. In: D. Western & M. Pearl (Eds.). Conservation for the Twenty-first Century, pp. 37–41. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flint, M., 1991. Biological Diversity and Developing Countries. Issues and Options. Overseas Development Administration, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, J. & P. Shepherd, 1995. Establishing criteria for identifying critical natural capital in the terrestrial environment: a discussion paper. English Nature Research Reports, no. 141. English Nature, Peterborough.

  • Given, D.R., 1994. Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomez-Campo, C. & collaborators. 1992. Libro rojo de especies vegetales amenazadas de Espana peninsular e Islas Balneares. Ministerio de Agricultura y Alimentacion, Madrid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, W.J., 1987. Monitoring genetic erosion: detection and assessment. Unpublished consultancy document report. AGPG:IBPGR/86/99. IBPGR, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groombridge, B., 1992. Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, L., 1995. Assessing the threat of genetic erosion. In: L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao & R. Reid (Eds.), Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Technical Guidelines, pp. 67–74. CAB International, Wallingford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargrove, C., 1992. Weak anthropocentric intrinsic value. The Monist 75: 183–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlan, J.R. & J.M.J. deWet, 1971. Towards a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxon 20: 509–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, J.G., 1987. Ranking plants of economic value for conservation and development: a feasibility study. Unpublished IUCNWWF report, Godalming.

  • Heywood, V.H., 1994. The measurement of biodiversity and the politics of implementation. In: P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries & R.I. Vane-Wright (Eds.), Systematics and Conservation Evaluation. Systematic Association Special Volume 50, pp. 15–22. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton-Taylor, C., 1996. Red data list of Southern African plants. National Botanical Institute, Pretoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN/WRI/CI/WWF-US/World Bank, 1990. Conserving the world's biodiversity. IUCN/WRI/CI/WWF-US/World Bank.

  • IUCN, 1994. IUCN red list categories. Prepared by IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN Gland.

  • Johnson, N., 1995. Biodiversity in the balance: approaches to setting geographic conservation priorities. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugo, A.E., 1988. Estimating reductions in the diversity of tropical forest species. In: E.O. Wison (Ed.). Biodiversity, pp. 58–70. National Acedemy Press, Washington D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Master, L.L., 1991. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5: 559–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxted, N., 1995. An ecogeographic study of Vicia subgenus Vicia. Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies in Crop Genepools 8. IBPGR, Rome. Pp. 184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxted, N., B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes, 1997. Plant genetic conservation: the in situ approach. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeely, J.A., 1988. Economics and biological diversity: developing and using economic incentives to conserve biological resources. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milliken, W., R.P. Miller, S.R. Pollard & E.V. Wandelli, 1992. Ethnobotany of the Waimiri Atroari indians of Brazil. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

  • Mills, L.S., M.E. Soulé & D.F. Doak, 1993. The keystone species concept in ecology and conservation. Bioscience 43: 219–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. 1984. Intuition, intrinsic value, and deep ecology. The Ecologist 14: 201–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbury, H.J. & Ford-Lloyd, B.V., 1997. In: N. Maxted, B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (Eds.). Plant Genetic Conservation: the in situ Approach. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D.W. & R.K. Turner, 1990. Economics of natural resources and the environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D.W. & D. Morgan, 1994. The economic value of biodiversity. Earthscan, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peet, P.K., 1974. The measurement of species diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 5: 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, M.C. & E. Bettencourt, 1995. Sources of information existing germplasm collections. In: L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha Rao & R. Reid (Eds.). Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity: Technical Guidelines, pp. 121–129. CAB International, Wallingford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shands, H.L., 1994. Some potential impacts of the United Nations Environment Program's Convention on Biological Diversity on the international system of exchanges of food crop germplasm. In: D. Witmeyer & M.S. Strauss (Eds.). Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, pp. 27–38. AAAS, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanson, T., 1995. Global values of biological diversity: the public interest in the conservation of plant genetic resources for agriculture. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 105: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, R., 1985a. A critique of deep ecology: part 1. Radical Philosophy 40: 2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, R., 1985b. A critique of deep ecology: part 2. Radical Philosophy 41: 10–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner, J.E., T.P. Hughes & J.H. Connell, 1994. Species coexistence, keystone species, and succession-a sensitivity analysis. Ecology 75: 2204–2219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, P.K. & M. Postle, 1994. Valuing the water environment: an economic perspective. In: N. Ward, & G.D. Garrod (Eds.).Water Quality: Understanding the Benefits and Meeting the Demands. CPE Research Report, Centre for Rural Economy, Department of Agricultural Economic and Food Marketing, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

  • United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, 1992 Convention on biodiversity. UNCED.

  • Vane-Wright, R.I., C.J. Humphries & P.H. Williams, 1991. What to protect? systematics and the agony of choice. Biological conservation 55: 235–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright, R.I., 1996. Identifying priorities for the conservation of biodiversity: systematic biology criteria within a socio-political framework. In: K.T. Gaston (Ed.). Biodiversity: A Biology of Number and Difference, pp. 309–344. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCMC, 1992. Global diversity: status of the Earth's living resources. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.H., 1992.WORLDMAP-priority areas for biodiversity. Version 3. Natural History Museum, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.H. & C.J. Humphries, 1994. Biodiversity, taxonomic relatedness and endemism in conservation. In: P.L. Forey, C.J. Humphries & R.I. Vane-Wright (Eds.). Systematics and Conservation Evaluation. Systematic Association Special Volume 50, pp. 207–229. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.H., C.J. Humphries & R.I. Vane-Wright, 1991. Measuring biodiversity for choosing conservation areas. In: J. La Salle & I. Gauld (Eds.). Hymenoptera and Biodiversity, pp. 309–328. CAB International, Wallingford.

    Google Scholar 

  • WRI, 1989. Keeping option alive: the scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. WRI, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • WRI, IUCN & UNEP, 1992. Global biodiversity strategy. WRI, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2tt, Uk

    N. Maxted, J.G. Hawkes & M. Sawkins

  2. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Regional Office for Sub-Saharan African, c/o Icraf, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi, Kenya

    L. Guarino

Authors
  1. N. Maxted
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J.G. Hawkes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Guarino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Sawkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maxted, N., Hawkes, J., Guarino, L. et al. Towards the selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 44, 337–348 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008643206054

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008643206054

Search

Navigation