Setting conservation priorities for Crop Wild Relatives in Portugal

1. JARDIM BOTÂNICO – MUSEU NACIONAL DE HISTÓRIA NATURAL (PORTUGAL) Setting conservation priorities for Crop Wild Relatives in Portugal Joana Magos Brehm Brian Ford-Lloyd Nigel Maxted Amélia Loução

2. Contents • Brief introduction • Objectives • Methodology • Results • Advantages and constraints • Problems encountered • Conclusions • References • Acknowledgments

3. 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.

4. Brief introduction Portugal... • ~ 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).

5. Brief introduction Major methods for prioritising Genetic Resources/Biodiversity • 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)

6. Brief introduction Major methods for prioritising Genetic Resources/Biodiversity • Ranking system • NatureServe (2001) – conservation actions or any taxonomic entity, North America • Pashley et al. (2004) – birds, North America • Rule-based system • IUCN (2001) – threat criteria and categories • CITES (www.cites.org)

7. Methodology • Database building and Criteria • Point Scoring Procedure (PSP) • Point Scoring Procedure with Weighting (PSPW) • Simple Ranking System (SRS) • Compound Ranking System (CRS)

8. 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)

9. Ethnobotanical Value • National uses (wild harvested species) • Red Listing assessment (IUCN, 2001, 2003) Threatened status Methodology 1.Database construction and Criteria Economic Importance • Crop category • Production of related crop (€) • Production of related crop (tons) • Surface of cultivation (ha) • Traditional products • # grown varieties Genus level Actual Economic Value Species level • Potential uses Potential Economic Value

10. Conservation status • Ex situ • In situ (active) • Habitat’s Directive (92/43/EEC) • Bern Convention (Appendix 1) • Euro Council (1977/1983, 1983) • Other international legislation • National legislation Legislation Global Distribution • Portugal; Iberian Peninsula; Iberian Peninsula+North Africa; Mediterranean; Europe/World National distribution • # provinces Methodology 1.Database construction and Criteria Species level

11. National statistics (INE, Portugal) • FAO Stats • National Catalogue of Varieties • Iberian Flora • Flora Europaea • Iberian Flora • EURISCO • Aguiar et al. (2001) • Mitchell (2004) • General ethnobotanical literature on uses • National ethnobotanical literature on uses • ICN (Natura 2000 Network) • EUFORGEN • Legal documents

12. 2.Point scoring procedure (PSP) Methodology

13. Methodology 2.Point scoring procedure (PSP)

14. Methodology 2.Point scoring procedure (PSP) 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

15. Methodology Conservation status Actual Economic Importance Potential Economic Value Ethnobotanical Value Threatened Status 20 % 10 % 10 % 15 % 10 % 15 % 10 % 10 % Habitat’s Directive Other international legislation Bern Convention National legislation Euro Council Legislation 3.Point scoring procedure with weighting (PSPW) Ex situ In situ (active) Highest scores - Priorities for conservation Global Distribution National Distribution

16. Methodology 1 1 2 3 2 High priority 3 4 2 4 5 3 5 High priority 7 High priority 1 6 6 RANKING ORDER 4. Simple Ranking System (SRS) INDIVIDUAL CRIETRIA

17. Methodology 1st 2nd 3rd Access Database Query

18. 5. Compound ranking system (CRS) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

19. Level 2 Level 3 Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 3 Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Level 4 Level 1 Level 3 Level 2 Level 4 Level 1 5. Compound ranking system (CRS) Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Level 4

20. 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)

21. Results Point scoring procedure (PSP) Point scoring procedure with weighting (PSPW) • Comparison between 4 methods

22. Simple Ranking System (SRS) Level 1 • Production € • Global distribution • Threat assessment • National uses • Global distribution • National uses • Threat assessment • Production € • Threat assessment • Global distribution • National uses • Production € Results

23. Level 3 Level 1 Compound Ranking System (CRS) • TEV • Threat assessment • Global distribution • Conservation status • National uses • National distribution • Legislation • Threat assessment • TEV • Global distribution • Conservation status • National uses • National distribution • Legislation • Global distribution • TEV • Threat assessment • Conservation status • National uses • National distribution • Legislation Results

24. Compound Ranking System (CRS) Economic value: Y Category of threat: Y Being conserved: N Legislation: Y National uses: Y Iberian Peninsula Economic value: Y Category of threat: N Being conserved: N Legislation: Y National uses: Y Portugal Economic value: Y Category of threat: Y Being conserved: N Legislation: Y National uses: N Iberian Peninsula Economic value: Y Category of threat: N Being conserved: N Legislation: Y National uses: N Portugal Economic value: Y Category of threat: Y Being conserved: N Legislation: N National uses: Y 3 provinces Iberian Peninsula+North Africa Economic value: Y Category of threat: N Being conserved: N Legislation: N National uses: N 1 province Portugal Level 4 Economic value: Y Category of threat: Y Being conserved: N Legislation: N National uses: Y 1 province Europe/World Economic value: Y Category of threat: N Being conserved: N Legislation: N National uses: N 2 provinces Portugal Level 1 Results

25. Advantages and constraints

26. Problems encountered General problems: • Taxonomy • Time consuming • Quality of data • Unavailability of data: • economic data and threat assessment • ornamental and forestry species Inaccurate results for those species without a complete set of data

27. not included in any economical statistics Problems encountered Specific 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?

28. Different methods different results • Different country’s needs / users’ needs choose the criteria and the method that suits best • 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. Summary

29. 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.

30. 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)

31. JARDIM BOTÂNICO – MUSEU NACIONAL DE HISTÓRIA NATURAL (PORTUGAL) Setting conservation priorities for Crop Wild Relatives in Portugal Joana Magos Brehm Nigel Maxted Brian Ford-Lloyd Amélia Loução