Journal of Botanic Gardens Conservation International 7_1.… · role of botanic gardens in exsitu conservation. Are we doing enough and are we doing it well? As Diana Pritchard and

Ex situ conservationthe value of plant

collections

Journal of Botanic Gardens Conservation International

Volume 7 • Number 1 • January 2010

Ex situ conservationthe value of plant

collections

A RE-EVALUATION OF THE ROLEOF EX SITU CONSERVATION INTHE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

EDITORIAL

THE PRICE OF CONSERVATION:MEASURING THE MISSION ANDITS COST

THE CONSERVATION OF CACTIAND SUCCULENTS IN BOTANICGARDENS

GETTING THE MOST OUT OFYOUR BGCI PLANT UPLOAD

SAFEGUARDING EXTINCTPLANTS IN EX SITUCOLLECTIONS

VALUING A NATIONALCOLLECTION: WORK INPROGRESS AT THEAUSTRALIAN NATIONALBOTANIC GARDENS

EX SITU CONSERVATION OFWILD PEAR, PYRUS L.(ROSACEAE) SPECIESAT THE YEREVAN BOTANICGARDEN, ARMENIA

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1) 01

BGjournal is published by Botanic Gardens ConservationInternational (BGCI). It is published twice a year and is sentto all BGCI members. Membership is open to all interestedindividuals, institutions and organisations that support theaims of BGCI (see inside back cover for Membershipapplication form).

Further details available from:

• Botanic Gardens Conservation International, DescansoHouse, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3BWUK. Tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5953, Fax: +44 (0)20 8332 5956E-mail: [email protected], www.bgci.org

• BGCI-Russia, c/o Main Botanical Gardens,Botanicheskaya st., 4, Moscow 127276, Russia.Tel: +7 (095) 219 6160 / 5377, Fax: +7 (095) 218 0525,E-mail: [email protected], www.bgci.ru

• BGCI-Netherlands, c/o Delft University of TechnologyJulianalaan 67, NL-2628 BC Delft, NetherlandsTel: +31 15 278 4714 Fax: +31 15 278 2355E-mail: [email protected]

• BGCI-Canarias, c/o Jardín Botánico Canario Viera y Clavijo,Apartado de Correos 14, Tafira Alta 35017,Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Gran Canaria, Spain.Tel: +34 928 21 95 80/82/83, Fax: +34 928 21 95 81,E-mail: [email protected]

• BGCI-China, 723 Xingke Rd., Guangzhou 510650 China.Tel:(86)20-37252692. email: [email protected]/china

• BGCI-South East Asia, c/o Registry, Singapore BotanicGardens, 1 Cluny Road, Singapore 259569.

• BGCI-Colombia, c/o Jardín Botánico de Bogotá,Jose Celestino Mutis, Av. No. 61-13 – A.A. 59887,Santa Fe de Bogotá, D.C., Colombia. Tel: +57 630 0949,Fax: +57 630 5075, E-mail: [email protected],www.humboldt.org.co/jardinesdecolombia/html/la_red.htm

• BGCI-Deutschland, c/o Botanische Gärten derUniversität Bonn, Meckenheimer Allee 171, 53115 Bonn,Germany. Tel: +49 2 2873 9055, Fax: +49 2 28731690,E-mail: [email protected]

• BGCI(US) Inc, c/o Chicago Botanic Garden,1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, Illinois 60022, USA.E-mail: [email protected], www.bgci.org/usa

BGCI is a worldwide membership organisation established in1987. Its mission is to mobilise botanic gardens and engagepartners in securing plant diversity for the well-being ofpeople and the planet. BGCI is an independent organisationregistered in the United Kingdom as a charity (Charity Reg No1098834) and a company limited by guarantee, No 4673175.BGCI is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation in theUSA and is a registered non-profit organisation in Russia.

Opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarilyreflect the views of the Boards or staff of BGCI or of itsmembers

Cover Photo: Aeonium spp. (BGCI)

Design: John Morgan, SeascapeE-mail: [email protected]

03

02

RESOURCES 29

07

12

15

18

22

25

Suzanne SharrockDirector of GlobalProgrammes

EDITORS

Sara OldfieldSecretary General

Volume 7 • Number 1

The United Nations has declared2010 to be the International Year ofBiodiversity calling on the world

leaders and all in a position to help, totake action to safeguard the variety oflife on earth. Throughout the year therewill be a focus on the 2010 BiodiversityTarget. Adopted by the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) in 2002 thisTarget set out to significantly reduce therate of loss of biodiversity by 2010.Overall it has scarcely been achieved butfor the botanic garden community, 2010will also be the year that we celebratethe significant achievements of theGlobal Strategy for Plant Conservation(GSPC). Outcomes of this Strategydirectly support the overall 2010 Target.

Sadly there is little evidence that the rateof loss of biodiversity has been reducedsince 2002. In fact with greaterawareness of the impact of climatechange, predictions based on modellingsuggest that the rate of loss ofbiodiversity will significantly increase.Perhaps it is time to re-think ourapproaches to biodiversityconservation? A greater sense ofurgency is certainly needed and waysmust be found to involve more people intackling the issues. Most people knowwhat they can personally do to cutcarbon emissions and help (in a smallway) to address climate change - not sofor stemming the loss of biodiversity.The connections between these two bigissues, climate change and biodiversityloss need to be made more explicitly,with of course, plants at the core of thedebate.

This issue of BGjournal focuses on therole of botanic gardens in ex situconservation. Are we doing enough andare we doing it well? As Diana Pritchard

and Stuart Harrop point out the role of exsitu conservation is one of the aspects ofbiodiversity conservation that wouldbenefit from re-evaluation in the light ofclimate change. The CBD considers exsitu measures to be valid whencomplimentary to in situ conservation,with the ecosystem approach theprevailing paradigm. Now with thethreats to biodiversity increasing andaction on the ground inadequate,perhaps we need to ensure that all wildplant species are backed up in well-documented ex situ collections, andavailable for restoration programmes.We should be increasingly linking thetwo approaches and not emphasisingthe distinctions.

In 2002, a global review of ex situconservation, noted that, Botanicalgardens maintain the largest assemblageof plants species outside nature, but nooverall assessment of the diverse arrayhas been conducted. Even though theycontain a large proportion of the world'sflora, the gardens have traditionally notbeen integrated, and their holdings havebeen known only locally. (Keller et al,2002 ). Target 8 of the GSPC calls for 60percent of threatened plants to be in exsitu collections. BGCI developed thePlantSearch database to help monitorprogress towards this target on a globalscale, thus addressing the issues notedby Keller et al. At least 40 percent ofglobally threatened plant species arenow known to be in ex situ collections.Various articles in this issue draw ondata from the global PlantSearchdatabase.

During 2010 BGCI will be preparing areport on the role of botanic gardens inex situ conservation to be presented atthe CBD Conference of the Parties

(COP) in October. To ensure that thework of your garden is included in thereport, we urge you to follow theexample provided by Abby Hird andMichael Dosmann (p18) and submit yourcollection information for inclusion in thePlantSearch database. We are alsoconducting a survey on the ways inwhich botanic gardens are implementingthe GSPC as a whole and will bepresenting the results of this at theFourth Global Botanic GardensCongress to be held in Dublin in June.If you have not yet completed thequestionnaire – please do so. Links to itcan be found on the BGCI website’shomepage.

The revised GSPC with its targets for2011-2020 will be debated and hopefullyaccepted by all Parties to the CBD attheir meeting in October, where BGCIplans to have a strong presence. Thankyou to all who have helped us in ourregional workshops to review the GSPCand to discuss the way forward.

We look forward to seeing many of youin Dublin.

Happy New Year!

Sara OldfieldSecretary General, BGCI

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1) • 0202

EDITORIAL:EX SITU CONSERVATION –THE VALUE OF PLANT COLLECTIONS

1Chances and limitations of ex-situ conservation ofspecies and genetic diversity on a global perspective,T. Keller, H. Korn, H. Schmid, Ch.F. Weisser,Landwirtschaftsverlag, 2002.

In situ and ex situ conservation havebeen established as two distinctapproaches to the protection of “wild”

biodiversity with ex situ approachesrelegated to a subsidiary position. In thisarticle, we explore whether ex situconservation should still besubordinated in this manner, particularlyin view of climate change models whichpredict the extinction of species anddrastic, rapid and chaotic shifts in thedistribution of habitats and speciesacross the globe.

The prevalence of in situ andex situ as its complement

The in situ paradigm has predominated,and since the 1992 Earth Summit at Riohas been designated, expressly, as thelegal and institutional priority. Theregulations and policy generated at Rioemphasise the maintenance ofecosystems, habitats and componentspecies in their home ranges. Thus theprevailing regulation, the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), addresses arange of practices relating to in situmeasures for conservation.

Other conventions also establish theprevalence of in situ conservationmethods with some appreciation of thebenefits of ex situ strategies. Thus CITESacknowledges that ex situ approaches inranching can be a solution to avoid anoutright trade ban on endangeredspecies, although generally a CITESlisting is designed to support in situ

strategies. Similarly, global policies andstrategies emphasise the role of in situ,and regard the use of ex situ methods assubsidiary. This is the case with theGlobal Strategy for Plant Conservationwhere the requirement is to:

“ employ in situ conservation

measures as the primary approach

for conservation, complementing

them where necessary with ex situ

measures.”The in situ focus derives primarily fromscientific considerations regarding theconservation and ecosystem benefitsunderstood to accrue from the protectionof integrated habitats and ecosystems.Yet, analysis of the process ofnegotiations leading up to the multilateralagreements defined at Rio reveals thatthe in situ focus was also key inaddressing the concern of developingnations to end the extraction of biologicalresources which had typically occurredsince colonial regimes.

Over the decades in situ conservationhas been implemented widely through avariety of mechanisms such as protectedareas, reserves, and integratedmanagement approaches. The value ofthese being that they extend over theterritories that correlate broadly to theranges and distribution of threatened,vulnerable or endangered species and

habitats. In the context of rapid climatechange this fixed geographical approachmay be their weakness.

Importantly, this in situ conservation workhas been institutionalised through myriadpublic and private organisations andactors who operate at local, national andinternational levels. Large internationalorganisations have become powerfulimplementers, and manifest the face of‘corporate conservation’ which hascharacterised the science and practice ofconservation in the late twentieth century(Adams, 2004). These have formedtransnational networks of alliances whichinform international conservation policyand facilitate the flow of funding, such asthat available via the GlobalEnvironmental Facility, which has nofocal area for ex situ activities.

Although ex situ strategies are dealt withexpressly in the CBD in Article 9, they areunequivocally relegated to a support roleas “complementing in-situ measures”.

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1) • 03-06 03

A RE-EVALUATION OF THE ROLEOF EX SITU CONSERVATION IN THE FACE OFCLIMATE CHANGE

Authors: Diana J. Pritchard and Stuart R. Harrop

Will conservationists need to change their approach asclimate change limits our ability to conserve species inthe wild?

Hedychium species invading a hillside in the Azores

Article 9(c) states that countries arerequired to adopt ex situ measures tofacilitate the rehabilitation of threatenedspecies and the reintroduction of theminto their natural habitats. This confinestheir significance to that of returningspecies to their habitual situ.Nonetheless, in recognition of relentlessextinction rates, key elements of theinternational conservation communityhave since elevated the role of ex situconservation.

“ Ex situ techniques must be

adopted because in situ

conservation will not always be

sufficient to ensure the long-term

existence of many species.”IUCN

The implications of climatechange for the in situ paradigmof conservation

Climatic conditions are now apparentwhich suggest the need to revise theprevalence assigned to in situconservation strategies. In addition tothe rapid extinction rates of speciesgenerated by direct anthropogeniccauses (epitomised by Diamond’s 1989evil quartet) we are faced with amassingevidence of the current impacts ofclimate change, and a view of thechanges in the near future provided bysophisticated predictive modellingtechniques. Some ecosystems arerapidly and demonstrably shifting, andeven vanishing especially at the extremepolar areas. Although predictive models

do not agree on the precise scope ofthese shifts in intermediate zones, theysuggest that, without humanintervention, fragile ecosystems maydisappear altogether and someapparently robust ecosystem ranges arelikely to shift geographical range anddistribution (Bakkenes et al, 2002).

“ The evil quartet: habitat

destruction, over-exploitation,

invasive alien species and chains

of extinction.” Diamond, 1989

This means that any one particular areamay soon experience very differentmeteorological conditions. Since thevelocity of climatic and environmentalchange compromises their potential toevolve, the species components ofcorresponding ecosystems may faceextinction unless they are able to adapt,disperse or migrate to other latitudes oraltitudes. Studies on an array of taxa offauna and flora show that individualspecies respond differently toenvironmental changes, that the rangeareas of species are shifting, and thatthose with specific habitat requirementsand limited dispersal mechanisms arethe most vulnerable to extinction(Hawkins et al, 2008). Given this, anumber of protected areas may soon nolonger harbour the species for whichthey were originally designated.Moreover, migration processes arejeopardised by ongoing habitatfragmentation (by the usual drivers ofland use change) which inhibit the abilityof species to re-colonise in new ranges,or even adjoining habitats. Given this,

conservation strategies, predominatedas they are on the management ofhabitats and species within specificgeographical locations, will need to bereviewed.

Further reasons why ex situconservation should have anincreased role

Other factors converge to make a reviewof the role of ex situ conservationnecessary. Primarily these comprise theadvances made in recent decades byinstitutions (including botanical gardens,arboreta, gene banks, aquaria and zoos)involved in ex situ techniques relating tocollection strategies, geneticassessment, gamete and zygotestorage. These institutions have alsoincreasingly responded to the need toexpand from their traditional focus onacquiring horticultural and exotic animalcollections, to demonstrate theircontribution to conservation (Maundersand Byers, 2005). Studies nowdocument their contributions andprovide indicators to assess them.

Ex situ organisations have proliferatedacross the globe, and within countries.There has been an exponential rise in theuse of ex situ facilities with half a millionsamples of plant genetic material storedin less than ten gene banks in the 1970’s,rising to more than 7.4 million samplesstored in more than 1,750 gene banks inthe present day (UN FAO, 2009). Someare developing the capacity throughengaging with wider international policyagendas such as: development, foodsecurity, and community rights, whetheror not motivated by the need to secureinternational donor support. Experienceof international collaboration involvingcombining ex situ and in situ activities isalso accumulating as exemplified by thenew International Treaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture. Thisenhanced technical and organisationalcapacity constitutes a stronger base fromwhich to advance the case for a greaterrole for ex situ conservation.

Moreover, since one of the key drivers inthe CBD to temper the role of ex situstrategies was the need to halt the trendof expropriation of resources, it may bethat the concerns in this respect are nowlargely satisfied. Many range countrieshave enacted strict access and benefitlaws in line with the provisions of the

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1)04

In situ conservation - a protected area in South Africa

CBD which on the face of it would makeit very difficult for commercially strongercountries to continue expropriation ofnatural resources.

In addition, evidence points to the need toreview some of the basic assumptionswhich have underpinned the in situparadigm. In particular, in the same waythat hunting and other extraction patternsexert selective pressure on targetedspecies, individual species responddifferentially to climatic change.Thus, the underlying principle of in situconservation, that ecosystemconservation ensures the protection ofcomponent biodiversity, is lesscompelling. The concept of ‘wilderness’also holds a weaker grip since it ischallenged by the documentation of thewidespread impact of human activity onhabitats across the globe and throughtime, including in places hithertoconsidered remote. The example iteratedby Posey that many apparently pristinejungle surroundings were actually gardenscreated by humans over thousands ofyears, illustrates the point (Posey andBalee, 1989). This demonstrates thatnature is not external to human beingsand has anyway not been wild or pristineexcept perhaps at the poles.

“ The fixed concept of ‘natural

surroundings’ may be

approaching meaningless for

a number of species.”

Conclusion

The current agendas of conservationists,and the conceptual bases informingthem, may have to be modified as ourunderstanding of the impact of climatechange unfolds. If the conservationmission is to be coupled successfully, asit should be, with the pressing issues ofwider global agendas including the needto secure food security, human healthand even human survival, ex situstrategies can no longer be regarded asmere support mechanisms for in situconservation but rather as a crucialmeans in themselves to fulfil a wider andintegrated mission to preserve globalbiodiversity.

The adoption of alternate conservationoptions may, of course, meet someresistance. Insights from policy analysisof international development (Haas,1997; Mosse, 2005) prepare us toanticipate how the interests of thenetworks of professionals andorganisations working on in situconservation become linked to thecontinuity of this paradigm. Throughtheir involvement in the internationalstructures of conservation, these‘epistemic communities’ exert influenceon the policy agendas of, and fundingfor, international conservation.Nonetheless, agents of conservationhave proved adept during the lastdecade at modifying their approaches,and at trying to improve conservationpractise (Adams, 2004).

It is also clear that it is necessary todiversify our own survival strategies byre-evaluating our established frameworkof thought on how to inhibit biodiversityloss. Necessarily, this will force a re-evaluation of accepted concepts such asthe nature and meaning of whatconstitutes the “range” of a species.Such an analysis will require legislativechanges. Within the CBD in situconservation is defined in relation to wildspecies, by reference to their naturalsurroundings and this perspectivepervades the concepts of in situ and exsitu strategies. As we have seen, thisfixed concept may be approaching themeaningless for a number of species inthat predictions describe a shifting ofhabitats in extension and distribution.A more fluid regulatory paradigm mayneed to be identified.

Ultimately, the challenge may force us toquestion more than mere regulatorydefinitions and institutional policies. Withthe recognition that populations declineor become extinct in their original rangesand habitats comes an heuristicchallenge to the very concept of in situ.Reintroduction of species into theoriginal home ranges will no longer be adesirable outcome of regeneration orcaptive breeding programmes.Therefore, a critical analysis of what, insome cases, have become sacredecological cows may be required. Thismay well result in the distinctionbetween concepts of ex and in situconservation blurring to the point ofdisappearing altogether.


Ice storm damage to forests in China

Monitoring an ex situ collection

References

, Adams, W. M., 2004. AgainstExtinction: The Story of Conservation.Earthscan.

, Bakkenes, M., Alkemadem, J. R. M.,Ihle, F., Leemans R. and Latour J. B.,2002. Assessing effects of forecastedclimate change on the diversity anddistribution of European higher plantsfor 2050, Global Change Biology 8 pp.390-407.

, CITES discussion paper: AC19 Inf.Relationship between ex situproduction and in situ conservation(Discussion paper for Agenda itemAC19 Doc. 11.2).

, Convention of Biodiversity (Articles 8and 9). 1992. Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity,Montreal, Canada.

, CBD, 2002. Global Strategy for PlantConservation. Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity,Montreal, Canada.

, Diamond, J. M., 1989. Overview ofrecent extinctions in: Conservation forthe Twenty-First Century (eds. D.Western & M. Pearl), pp. 824-62.Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

, FAO, 2009. The State of the World’sPlant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture. Second edition. Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome, Italy.

, IUCN, 2002. Technical Guidelines inthe Management of ex situ populationsfor Conservation. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

, Harrop, S. R., 2004. Indigenouspeoples, traditional ecologicalknowledge and the perceived threat ofthe intellectual property rights regime.Law, Science and Policy Vol. 2, pp.207-39.

, Haas, P. M., ed. 1997. Knowledge,Power, and International PolicyCoordination, Studies in InternationalRelations, University of South CarolinaPress.

, Havens, K., Vitt, P., Maunder, M.,Guerrant E. O. Jr., and K. Dixon.,2006. Ex situ Plant Conservation andBeyond. BioScience 56:6, pp. 525-31.

, Hawkins, B., Sharrock, S. and HavensK., 2008. Plants and climate change:which future? Botanic GardensConservation International, Richmond,UK.

, Hickling, R., Roy, D. B., Hill, J. K., Fox,R. and Thomas, C. D., 2006, Thedistributions of a wide range oftaxonomic groups are expandingpolewards. Global Change Biology 12,pp. 450-5.

, Maunder, M. and Byers, O., 2005, TheIUCN Technical Guidelines on theManagement of Ex Situ Populationsfor Conservation: reflecting on majorchanges in the application of ex situconservation, Oryx, 39:1, pp. 95-8.

, Mosse, D., 2005. CultivatingDevelopment: An Ethnography of AidPolicy and Practice. Pluto Press.

, Posey, D. and Balee, W., 1989.Resource Management in Amazonia:Indigenous and Folk Strategies. TheNew York Botanical Garden Volume 7,Advances in Economic Botany,Washington and London. SmithsonianPress.

, Wyse Jackson, P., 2003. GlobalStrategy for Plant Conservation:Refinement of Target 8. BGCNews3:10, pp30-32.

Diana J PritchardVisiting Research FellowSchool of Global StudiesUniversity of Sussex, UKEmail: [email protected]

Stuart R HarropDirectorDurrell Institute of Conservation andEcology (DICE)School of Anthropology andConservationMarlowe BuildingUniversity of Kent, Canterbury,Kent, CT2 7NR, UKEmail: [email protected]


Medicinal plants on sale in South Africa

Encroaching desertification – a consequence of climate change? (Peter Wyse Jackson)

Introduction

Many botanic gardens around theworld are challenged forresources to adequately secure

and maintain their collections. However,as similarly argued by Suarez and Tsutsui(2004) in relation to museum collections,the maintenance of collections isinexpensive compared with the potentialcosts of their absence. It is suggestedthat beyond botanic gardens staff, thereis often little understanding of therelevance and critical value of botanicgardens to conservation. Nevertheless,with ongoing cross cutting issues such ashabitat loss and climate changethreatening the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity, the valueof these ex situ collections is increasing inimportance. Australia’s botanic gardens,for example, have significant plantedliving collections, seed banks and genebanks that are essential for managing therisk of species and associated ecosystemloss in the wild (Council of Heads ofAustralian Botanic Gardens (CHABG)2009:7). Furthermore, these livingcollections can and do support valuableresearch on seed biology and storage,taxonomy and systematics, ecosystemrestoration and horticultural and/orthreatened species (CHABG 2008:19).

The potential for botanic gardens toprovide greater value to biodiversityefforts is large. This will require individualinstitutions to reflect and evaluate theircollections in terms of critical values thatlink to conservation, together with theother key functions of the botanic garden.

Valuing any collection is challenging, butit has been more commonly done inrelation to museum collections (e.g.Morgan 2002; Ponder et al., 2001; Suarezand Tsutsui, 2004). Available literatureaddressing the challenge of valuing abotanical institution’s living collectionappears to be inadequate. Nevertheless,there are valuable studies on theconservation value of palm collections(Maunder et al., 2001) and theeffectiveness of European botanic gardencollections in supporting conservation(Maunder, Higgens and Culham, 2001).

“ Living collections support

valuable research, restoration,

horticultural and educational

activities.”The purpose of this article is to describethe process being undertaken at theAustralian National Botanic Gardens(ANBG) to value its living collection.The article will also highlight some of thekey challenges being faced by the ANBGduring this process. The authors


VALUING A NATIONAL COLLECTIONAWORK IN PROGRESS AT THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONALBOTANIC GARDENS

Authors: Lucy Sutherland and Craig Cosgrove

How can botanic gardens ensure the continuing relevance and importance of theirplant collections in rapidly changing times?

The potted collection (including this Swainsona formosa) being valued

acknowledge that this is a trial processin its early stages which is stillundergoing discussion and review.The authors welcome communications,as well as examples of reviews that otherbotanical institutions have undertaken.

For the purpose of the review, the LivingCollection refers to all of the living plantmaterial held by the ANBG, including itsdisplay garden collections, itsglasshouse display collection, itsglasshouse research collection, itsnursery collection and its seed bank.

Challenges for a nationalinstitution

Based in Australia’s capital city,Canberra, the Australian NationalBotanic Gardens is a unique institution inthe history of Australian botany andpossesses the largest single collection ofAustralian native flora in the world. Thiscollection has added value because it isa national living collection with knownprovenance. The institution’s leadingwork in native plant horticulture has

provided a catalyst for the developmentof regional botanic gardens cultivatingAustralian plants throughout the country.In addition, since the late 1940s, it haschallenged previous thinking aboutbotanic garden landscapes in Australia(Lester Firth Associates, 1987; NationalCapital Planning Authority, 1995) bymoving away from the previouslycommon colonial model.

Since its establishment, the ANBG’sLiving Collection has had two key focithat have successfully generated interestat a national and international levelduring different times. The first was inrelation to the cultivation of Australianplants during the 1960s and 1970s andthe second was plant conservation in the1980s and 1990s.

“ The Australian National

Botanic Garden possesses the

largest single collection of

Australian native flora in the

world.”Since the early 1980’s, the ANBG hasbeen a major contributor to developingthe role of botanic gardens in plantconservation. The ANBG LivingCollection has played an important partin this work. The ANBG conservationwork was commenced with theestablishment of the Rare andThreatened Collection in an effort todevelop its role in ex situ conservation.Not only were a large number ofthreatened species brought intocultivation, but an effort was made toensure that any species was representedby a broad range of genetic samples soas to make them useful for researchwork (Richardson, 2008), and for thespecies as an entity to survive long term.

In the 21st century, several factors haveresulted in the drive to review theANBG’s living collection and therebysupport the repositioning of theinstitution in coming years to ensure itscontinuing relevance and importance in


Developing a reliable tool for measuring subjective values, such as aesthetics, is a challenge

Hibiscus insularis, endemic to Phillip Island in the Norfolk Island Group, has reduced genetic diversity and islisted as Critically Endangered

rapidly changing times. One such factorwas the need to revise the aim of thecollection as the original goal for theANBG as a comprehensive nationalcollection is no longer being achieved inone botanic garden, but rather by anumber of botanic gardens acrossdifferent climatic conditions in Australia(Richardson, 2008). Another drivingfactor has been the drier climaticconditions being experienced inCanberra over the past decade,presenting challenges when trying toalign the institution with the principles ofenvironmental sustainability. In addition,there are also the challenges ofcontinuing to secure, maintain anddevelop the collection without greatlyincreasing financial resources.

The ANBG’s review of its livingcollection

Historically the ANBG has primarilytaken a ‘stamp collecting’ approach tobuilding its living collection aiming tohave as full a representation as possibleof the Australian flora. Previous LivingCollection reviews were largely a part ofthe ongoing effort to achieve this aimand tended to focus on determining thesuccess of the plantings in any one ofthe thematic or systematic collections(ANBG, 2002).

The current review of the living collectionaims to revisit the original basicprinciples of the major underlying reasonfor the ANBG’s Living Collection andevaluate the collection in terms of theANBG’s role as a national institution andits vision and mission, its diversestakeholders, its sustainability and thecollections role in supporting scienceand education, as well as Australia’spriorities in biodiversity conservation.

The broad outcome of the review aims tobe a long term (50 year) vision for theANBG Living Collection, includingrecommendations on its content andmanagement. The review will alsoproduce:

• A strategic report that can be used tobetter reflect and promote the value ofthe Living Collection, both nationallyand internationally.

• An accurate record of what iscurrently in the Living Collection,together with comparative data fromprevious censuses.

• A reliable and valid tool that can beused to value the collections and hasthe potential to be transferable toother institutions.

The ANBG management decided toundertake most of the review processinternally and use this opportunity todraw on existing corporate knowledgeand further build capacity within theinstitution. The review is supported bybotanic garden consultant, MarkRichardson and a Panel of ExternalExperts from such fields as horticulture,ecology, landscape architecture andbotanic gardens.

The review process

The review process involves four keyphases:

1) Phase one (completed)Preliminary work for the review involved:

• development of a proposal for theliving collection review (Richardson,2008);

• an in-depth stock-take of the ANBGliving collections;

• facilitating 10 focus group discussionswith community members associatedwith botanic gardens in 7 state capitalcities and two regional areas to gaininsight into what people want andexpect of a living collection from anational institution (i.e. ANBG).

2) Phase two (nearing completion):

• undertaking a comparison of thelatest stock-take findings withinformation from the 2002-2008Thematic Planting Plan;

• running reports on the IntegratedBotanical Database System (IBIS) tobuild statistical data on the livingcollection;

• developing criteria and a system forassigning values to the livingcollections;

• first trial of the ‘value’ system withseveral collections includingpermanent pots, display glasshouseand two display garden collections;followed by a revision of the valuesystem;

• second trial of ‘value’ system on 20collections; followed by furtherrevision of the value system;

• investigation of options for integratingthe new classification into the IBIS.

3) Phase three (progressing):

• rapid assessment of all display gardenand nursery collections to provideinitial information on the values ofeach collection against theassessment criteria;

• use of data to inform and set prioritiesfor management, includingmaintenance and development/redevelopment programmes.

4) Phase four (yet to be initiated) – focuson individual plants:

• develop criteria and a system forassigning values to individual plants inthe living collection;

• trial the ‘value’ system on individualplants; followed by a revision of thevalue system;

• detailed assessment of all collections,focussing on priorities identifiedduring phase three (see above), toevaluate individual plantingsaccording to the criteria (this will be amajor undertaking conducted over anumber of years);

• use of the data to inform thedevelopment of collection managementplans and new developments.

The ‘valuing’ tool

Attributing a value to each ANBG livingcollection involves developing anevaluative scoring system that produces


Horticulturalist Julie Percival assigning a yellow tagto plants that have an undetermined origin

an ‘end’ score when each collection isassessed against criteria (Table 1; Box1). Noteworthy is that a low aggregatescore can be used to guide managementdecisions in various ways e.g. addingplants with a conservation value to thecollection can increase its value, as cangreater use of some collections foreducation.

The process of developing objectivecriteria that are reliable (i.e. theapplication of the criteria yields the sameresult on repeated trials) and havevalidity (i.e. accurately assess the value)is challenging (Table 1). The criteria haveinitially been developed by a consultantand are currently being critiqued by staff,Friends and external experts. A trialprocess, as part of Phase two (seeabove), involves 2 stages to fine tune themeasuring instrument for valuing thecollections (Box 1) and it will also bethe basis for the value assessmenttool for individual plantings in thelonger term.

This rapid assessment of collections willprovide vital information for settingpriorities for management, includingmaintenance schedules anddevelopments. In addition, it will providean immediate indication of how well thecurrent Living Collection is meeting theaims of the ANBG.

The finalisation of the assessment tool isstill a work in progress. At the time ofpublication, the criteria are beingcritically reviewed and subsequently finetuned following the trial outcomes.There are also discussions focusing on

developing additional criteria formeasuring sustainable horticulture toaddress the need to align withsustainability principles. Furthermore,there is ongoing debate relating to theuse of subjective criteria such as valuingthe aesthetic and landscape appeal ofindividual collections.

An emerging initiative supported by thefederal environment department(Department of Environment, Water,Heritage and the Arts1) is to approachthe valuation of collections from anenvironmental economics viewpoint.An early career researcher begins aone-year Postdoctoral fellowship inDecember 2009 to research the meansof identifying and realising the social andenvironmental benefits of collections,such as specimens housed in herbariaand museums. It is envisaged theoutcomes of the Department’s projectwill further inform the ANBG’s LivingCollection review.

“ Assessing collections will

provide vital information for

priority setting and awareness

raising.”A work in progress…

The ANBG Living Collection review isvery much a work in progress. The initialphases have provided an opportunity toreconcile existing electronic informationwith the reality of the collection. Thishas been very informative because it hashighlighted limitations in someprocedures and the documentation ofactivities.

Further progress hinges on the finetuning of the measurement tool forvaluing the collection and is theimmediate priority. Once finalised, wewill undertake a rapid assessment ofaround 250 collections that form theANBG’s Living Collection. Thedevelopment of the tool for valuingindividual plants within the collection isthe final phase of the review process.

An important outcome from the livingcollection review process, thus far, hasbeen the bringing together of staff andexperts from various disciplines tocritically discuss the valuing of the Living

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1)101 The Australian National Botanic Gardens is agovernment institution managed by the Department ofEnvironment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Table 1: Draft assessmentcriteria and scale:

Clarity of theme 0-2• 0 = no clear theme given (e.g.

mixed planting)• 1 = a mixture of unrelated themes• 2 = a clear theme givenRelevance of theme to ANBGMission 0-2• 0 = theme unrelated• 1 = theme generally related• 2 = theme closely relatedRelevance of plantings to statedtheme: 0-3• 0 = plantings unrelated• 1 = a mix of related and unrelated

plantings• 2 = the majority of plantings related• 3 = all of the plantings relatedMain Use: A. Informaleducation/Labelling &interpretation• 1 = plants labelled• 2 = other interpretation present

Main Use: B. Informal education/Guides• 0 = no use by guides• 1 = used by guidesMain Use: C. Formal education• 0 = no use for formal education• 1 = occasional use for formal

education• 2 = frequent use for formal

educationMain Use: D. Conservation 0-2• 0 = no activity recorded• 1 = plants present with

conservation status• 2 = collection of plants with

conservation statusMain Use: E. Research 0-2• 0 = no activity recorded• 1 = plants present that have been

used for research purposes• 2 = collection of plants for a

research purposeCollection audit; 0-1• 0 = collection stock-take (No)• 1 – collection stock-take (Yes)

Box 1: Assessment Example

Using the criteria outlined in Table 1,a collection that has: a clear theme(2); a theme generally related to theANBG mission (1); the majority ofplantings relevant to the statedtheme (2); labelled plants (1);interpretive guide use (1); occasionaluse for formal education (1); someuse for conservation (1); and beenregularly audited (1) would score 11.On that basis, any collection scoringat least 11 could perhaps beconsidered to be effectivelycontributing to the aims of the LivingCollection and the mission of theANBG. The highest score wouldbe 17.

Collection. This helps to strengthencross-institutional communications,engage staff in the process and raiseawareness of its relevance andimportance.

References

, Australian National Botanic Gardens,2002. Thematic Plan 2002-2008.Available [online] http://www.anbg.gov.au/anbg/thematic-plan/introduction.html#existing, accessed 7/10/2009.

, Council of Heads of Australian BotanicGardens, 2008. National Strategy andaction Plan for the Role of Australia’sBotanic Gardens in Adapting toClimate Change. Australia:Commonwealth of Australia andCHABG.

, Donaldson, J.A., 2009. Botanicgardens science for conservation andglobal change. Trends in PlantScience 14(11):608-613.

, Lester Firth Associates, 1985. ANBGDevelopment Plan. Australia: LesterFirth Associates 1985.

, Mathams, S., 2009. BiodiversityConservation and the AustralianNational Botanic Gardens: strategicopportunities. An unpublished reportprepared for the Australian NationalBotanic Gardens, Australia.

, Maunder, M., Higgens, S. and Culham,A., 2001. The effectiveness of botanicgardens collections in supporting plantconservation: a European case study.Biodiversity and Conservation 10:383-401.

, Maunder, M., Lyte, B., Dransfield, J.and Baker, W., 2001. The conservationvalue of botanic garden palmcollections. Biological Conservation98: 259-271.

, Morgan, J., 2002. Museum’s odditiesbrought to account. Sydney MorningHerald 27 November 2002. Available[online] http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/26/1038274303895.html, accessed 27/11/2009.

, National Capital Planning Authority,1995. Draft Amendment of theNational Capital Plan Amendment

No.16 (Master Plan for the AustralianNational Botanic Gardens) andBackground Report. AustralianCapital Territory (planning and LandManagement) Act 1988.

, Ponder, W.F., Cater, G.A., Flemons, P.and Chapman, R.R., 2001. Evaluationof Museum Collection Data for Use inBiodiversity Assessment.Conservation Biology 15(3): 648-657.

, Richardson, M., 2008. LivingCollection Review Proposal. Anunpublished report prepared for theAustralian National Botanic Gardens,Australia.

, Suarez, A.V. and Tsutsui, N.D., 2004.The value of museum collections forresearch and society. Bioscience54(1): 66-74.

Dr Lucy A. Sutherland (AssistantDirector Policy and StrategicPlanning)

Craig Cosgrove (Curator)

Australian National BotanicGardensGPO Box 1777Canberra, ACT, 2601 AustraliaEmail: [email protected] [email protected]

AcknowledgementsThe review of the ANBG’s LivingCollection is a collaborative process andthe authors acknowledge theconsiderable input from staff from theANBG and the Centre for PlantBiodiversity Research, with particularmention of David Taylor, Paul Carmenand Joe McAuliffe. Contributions fromconsultant Mark Richardson and expertpanel members Mark Fountain at theRoyal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens,Stig Pedersen, Booderee BotanicGardens, and Dr. Roger Good, alpineecologist in Australia are significant.


ANBG staff discuss the landscape design and values of the Mallee collection

$Introduction

Conservation is a primary purposeof the botanic garden livingcollection. Recent worldwide

economics have placed every aspect ofbotanic garden operations under closerscrutiny. So, these days, measuringsuccess is vital, and controlling cost iscritical. In a world of disappearing plantsand shrinking resources, knowing realsuccess and real costs of conservationwork is essential.

The limiting element of conservation workis funding. Maximizing conservation perdollar spent is important. For plantconservation goals, straightforward metricassessments of success have beenlacking – often, success is qualitativelyevaluated. Modern tools allow directmeasurement of conservation. DNA-based studies are increasingly lessexpensive and offer greater resolution.

“ When funding is in short

supply, maximizing conservation

per dollar spent is important.”Our garden is focused on three plantgroups, all with myriad conservationconcerns: Cycads, Palms, and TropicalConifers. Protocols for livingconservation collections at MontgomeryBotanical Center (MBC) were developedin the 1990s following isozyme-basedstudies of cycad genetics (Walters andDecker-Walters, 1991). Basically, withina single population, we seek to conserveat least 15 individual plants, preferablyfrom at least 3 different mothers. In otherwords, maintaining 3 accessions perpopulation, each with multiple qualifiers,is our goal.

This protocol is a good place to begininvestigating the relationship betweenthe genetics and economics ofconservation collections in a botanicgarden setting. To frame the questiondirectly: how effective is ourconservation strategy,as measured against the investment?

A case study

Botanical science can directly informbotanic garden management; sciencecan guide strategy. To approach thisliving collections management question,we located a suitable model system.Our collections of Keys Thatch Palm(Leucothrinax morrisii) were well suitedto the exercise, owing to large numbersof plants curated from a single isolatedpopulation. We maintain almost 60palms from this population on thegrounds, and curate them by accession,so we can separate them into half-sibling groups. All of these resulted froma single collecting trip in the late 1990s.

Using a recently-developed geneticassessment method, we comparedthese 60 plants in the collection to abroad sample of plants still surviving inthe original population (Namoff et al.,ined.). Stated simply, around 94% of thewild genes in that population arerepresented in the collection.

So, in this case a collection of 60 plantscaptures all but a few percent of thepopulation diversity. Often, though,

collections may contain fewerrepresentative plants. We spent timeprocessing these data to model howgenetic capture functions over a range ofcollection sizes. We believe these resultsare useful as a point of consideration forcollections planning.

Economics of the conservationcollection

The data gleaned here, when comparedto investment in the collection, can offersome potential insight of use for botanicgarden conservation. Here, we presenta simple visualization of the interplay ofthree variables: plants, genetic capture,and cost.

Sampling methods vary amoungcollectors and gardens, so to offer broadapplicability for the very diverse botanic

BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1) • 12-1412

THE PRICE OF CON$ERVATION:MEASURING THE MISSION AND ITS COST

Authors: Patrick Griffith and Chad Husby

Montgomery Botanical Centre has been investigatingthe relationship between the conservation value andthe financial costs of their living collections.

Corypha taliera is extinct in the wild, and knownfrom perhaps fewer than 20 individuals. MBCmaintains 13 plants

garden community, we simplify the mainsampling metric as “number of plantsmaintained in collection.” This is astraightforward count, very easy tocalculate, and is perhaps the simplestbenchmark for measuring an institution’sinvestment in a particular plant group,species, or population. Since this is sucha fundamental parameter, we chose toalso make it the “common denominator”for this model.

The important metric with regard toconservation success is “degree ofgenetic capture.” For our case study,this was measured via ISSR (inter-simplesequence repeat) data, but a broadvariety of modern methods exist for theassay of genetic diversity.

The third metric examined is monetaryinvestment. Managers and governingorganisations are quite familiar with thismeasure. Calculating the cost ofmaintaining a collection of plants may beperformed in a way that makes the mostsense to the organization involved. Thecost of obtaining the collection in its firstyear is almost always greater than theannual cost of keeping the collection.In our study, we calculated fixed costs(fieldwork expenses) and variable costs(cost to maintain an individual plant peryear). One quick, straightforward way toestimate this cost is to divide the annual“horticulture” and “plant records” costsby the number of plants maintained.

Insights from this model

The three graphs presented here showthe interaction of these three variables.The first graph (Graph A) models theincrease in genetic capture, as thenumber of plants is increased.Essentially, this relationship follows aninverse exponential pattern. The

important consideration here is thatinitial increases (for example, from 1plant to 5 plants, or from 1 plant to 10plants) give a steep increase in geneticcapture. There is a point at whichadditional plants in the collection do notadd significant conservation value. Ineconomics, this type of pattern is calledthe “law of diminishing marginal returns.”

The second graph presented here(Graph B) shows the relationshipbetween collection size and cost. Sinceeach plant costs the same to maintain,there are really no surprises here; moreplants equal higher costs. The positionof the Y-intercept is equal to the fixedcost of bringing the plants to the garden,and is never equal to zero. For most

conservation work, major costs hereinclude travel to field sites and personnelcosts for the field botanist. The slope ofthe line reflects the efficiency of thehorticulture operation. Administratorsgrasp this type of straight-line functioneasily.

The third graph brings all three variablestogether (Graph C). Again, we use thenumber of plants as the basicbenchmark. Our metric, “unit cost ofconservation,” is simply the % geneticcapture divided by the cost of thatcollection. The behavior of this curve hasmuch to say about the economics ofbotanic garden conservation. First, thereis significant decrease in the unit cost asthe collection increases above one


Keys Thatch Palm, which provided a model system for ex situ conservation economics

Graph A: The conservationist’s curve: graph ofcollection size vs. allele capture.

Graph B: A manager’s view: graph of collection sizevs. cost.

Graph C: reconciling cost and conservation: graphof collection size vs. “unit cost” of genetic capture.

Native populations of Cycas micronesica are insevere decline due to an exotic insect

individual. This is followed by a steadyincrease in the unit cost as the collectionis increased further. Ultimately, the unitcost more or less increases linearly.

Two primary points are meaningful here.First, there is a collection size at whichthere is a maximum efficiency forconservation. This is at the lowest Y-value on the curve. Second, there is amaximum collection size where the unitcosts are equal to the lowest collectionsize. Simply stated, “if you would growone, you may as well grow twenty,” asthe unit cost of conservation is the same.

Going forward

This study compares the conservationvalue of a living plant collection, and itsmonetary cost over time. What does thismean for the botanic garden? Space,staffing, funding, and priority are allimportant considerations for any project.For conservation, a direct metric ofsuccess is helpful for evaluation andfuture planning. From the managerialperspective, knowing projectedoutcomes relative to investment is thekey to most decisions. In very broadterms, this model provides one potentialstarting point for the Comptroller and theCurator to sit down at the same table.

Like all models, this one is best when itis used with accurate data. Our casestudy of Leucothrinax employed a long-lived, polycarpic perennial palm, with amonoecious breeding system and astraightforward life history. The targetedpopulation shows healthy recruitment,and is easily circumscribed by theboundaries of Big Pine Key, an island.We selected it as a case study for thesereasons, as it is more or less generalizedin its biology.

Within the palm family alone, there aremany other life histories, habits,phytogeographies, conservationconcerns, and breeding systems. Oneprominent example is Corypha taliera.This species is known from perhaps fewerthan 20 living individuals, and is extinct inthe wild. Its century-long, hapaxanthic lifehistory adds another level of complexity toits management. One high-profile species,Wollemia nobilis, has no discernablegenetic variation in the wild (Peakall et al.,2003), so any single-specimen gardencollection is perhaps a more-or-lesscomplete genetic collection.

Examining our protocol with this modelsystem, we found that our existing targetof 15 individuals does provide for ahealthy level of genetic capture,consistent with our goals. We found thatour highest efficiency in conservationversus cost occurs at around 5individuals.

“ In many cases it is prudent

to grow as many plants as you

can afford.”The upper limit to a conservationcollection need only be limited byresources, though. There are certainlymany cases where it is prudent to growas many plants as you can afford, andexamine the genetics when you get achance. Here at Montgomery, we recentlyplanted our most extensive single-species cycad collection, 79 individualsof Cycas micronesica, representing 29accessions from 2007. This cycad has ahigh likelihood of going extinct in the wild,and our recent conservation efforts mayhave obtained some of the last seed thatwill be produced in situ. As the geneticinformation becomes available (Cibrian etal., 2008), we can consider thinning anypotential genetic duplicates if space isneeded. Since unforeseen circumstancescan also cause the loss of individuals in acollection (Griffith et al., 2008), someredundancy is important. In such cases,it is absolutely worth the extra cost togrow a large collection.

References

, Cibrian, A., Marler, T. and Brenner,E.D., 2008. Development of EST-microsatellites from the cycad Cycasrumphii, and their use in the recentlyendangered Cycas micronesica.Conservation Genetics.

, Griffith, M. P., Noblick, L. R., Dowe, J.L., Husby, C. E. and Calonje, M., 2008.Cyclone tolerance in New WorldArecaceae: biogeographic variationand abiotic natural selection. Annals ofBotany 102: 591-598.

, Namoff, S., Husby, C. E., Francisco-Ortega, J., Noblick, L. R., Lewis, C. E.and Griffith M. P., Ined. Evaluating abotanic garden conservation protocol:Case study of an ex situ plantcollection via molecular means.

, Peakall, R., Ebert, D., Scott, L.J.,Meagher, P.F. and Offord, C.A., 2003.Comparative genetic study confirmsexceptionally low genetic variation inthe ancient and endangered relictualconifer, Wollemia nobilis(Araucariaceae). Molecular Ecology12:2331–2343.

, Walters, T. W. and Decker-Walters, D.S., 1991. Patterns of AllozymeDiversity in the West Indies CycadZamia pumila (Zamiaceae). AmericanJournal of Botany 78: 436-445.

Patrick GriffithExecutive [email protected]

Chad HusbyCollections Manager [email protected]

Montgomery Botanical Center,Coral Gables, Florida USA.www.montgomerybotanical.org

AcknowledgementsWe are very grateful to the InternationalPalm Society for funding theconservation genetic assay. The entireMBC Team, especially Palm BiologistLarry Noblick, has done a great jobcaring for these living treasures for overa decade. Our colleagues Carl Lewis,Sandra Namoff, and Javier Francisco-Ortega performed the labwork for theanalysis. This economic model was firstpresented in a panel discussionorganized by Andrea Kramer of BGCI,as part of the American Public GardenAssociation 2009 National Meeting.


Introduction

Botanic gardens around the worldhave impressive collections of cactiand other succulents for display,

landscaping, research and educationpurposes. With a significant proportion ofarid land plant species being threatenedwith extinction in the wild, the livingcollections in botanic gardens also havehuge potential for ex situ conservation andrestoration of natural populations. Somebotanic gardens are already using theircollections to fulfill these important roles.Individual gardens can use the BGCI

PlantSearch database to check theconservation status of cacti in theircollections (See also p 18). At a globallevel the PlantSearch database can beused to analyse the extent to whichthreatened cacti and other succulents arein ex situ collections and to assist inplanning for the long term conservation ofthese popular and charismatic plantspecies. BGCI has recently begunworking with the InternationalOrganisation for Succulent Plant Studies(IOS) to evaluate collections of cacti forconservation purposes both in botanicgardens and in private collections.

The Cactaceae

The Cactaceae family has over 1,400species and 380 heterotypic subspeciesalmost confined to the Americas. Mexicois the richest centre of diversity for thefamily with nearly 600 species and 170heterotypic subspecies within thecountry. Threats to the species in the wildinclude over-collection for internationalcommerce, the all too familiar processesof habitat degradation and destructionand the overarching problem of globalclimate change. A full Red Listassessment for the family is currentlybeing carried out coordinated byDr Barbara Goettsch at University ofSheffield, UK in collaboration with theIUCN/SSC Cactus and SucculentSpecialist Group, the Center for AppliedBiodiversity Science at ConservationInternational (CI/CABS) and BGCI.As an interim measure, a preliminaryassessment of the conservation status ofcacti published in 2006 suggests that 542species and subspecies are threatenedwith extinction (equivalent to CR, EN, VU)at a global scale (Taylor et al, 2006). Usingthis preliminary list an analysis of cactusholdings in botanic gardens has beenundertaken using the PlantSearchdatabase. According to this survey,366 of the globally threatened taxa arerecorded in botanic garden collections.


THE CONSERVATIONOFCACTI AND SUCCULENTSIN BOTANIC GARDENS

Authors: Sara Oldfield and David Hunt

Botanic gardens have an important role to play inensuring that no species of cactus or other succulentplant becomes needlessly extinct.

Threatened Didymaotus lapidiformis growing in Karoo Desert Botanic Garden, South Africa (Christopher Willis)

Transplanting Echinocereus schmolli (JB Cadereyta,Mexico)

“ The Cactaceae are almost

entirely endemic to the Americas;

from British Columbia and

Alberta in Canada, to Patagonia

in Argentina.”Botanic garden collections

The most commonly recorded globallythreatened cactus in botanic gardencollections is Echinocactus grusonii. Thisdistinctive species, now widely cultivated,was first discovered in 1889. Largenumbers of wild plants were exportedfrom Mexico and by the end of the 19thcentury there were fears about thepotential extinction of the species.Unfortunately in 1995, the original habitatof the golden barrel cactus wasdestroyed by the construction of a dam inthe Moctezuma River Canyon betweenthe states of Querétaro and Hidalgo.Twenty years later, a new disjunct

population of this species was discoveredabout 500 km away in the state ofZacatecas. The DNA structure of theplants from the new and original locationsis currently being studied by researchersfrom the Universidad Autónoma deQuerétaro, University of Reading and theNational Autonomous University ofMexico. Echinocactus grusonii is listed asCritically Endangered by Taylor et al,2006. Over 130 botanic gardens have thisspecies in their collections, according toBGCI’s PlantSearch database. For ex situconservation purposes, plants of knownwild origin are, of course, particularlyvaluable as they form part of the originalgene pool of the species and havepotential for re-establishment ofpopulations close to their originallocalities.

Other globally threatened cacti that areheld by a wide range of botanic gardensinclude the Mexican CITES Appendix Ilisted species, Ariocarpus trigonus,Aztekium ritteri, Obregonia denegrii andTurbinicarpus pseudomacrochele andMammillaria spp such as M. plumosa, M.microhelia, M. magnifica, M. wiesingeri,and M. zeilmanniana. All of these arerepresented in over 30 botanic gardensas recorded in the PlantSearch database.

“ Cacti have long been

regarded as one of the most

highly threatened plant

families.”In contrast, numerous globallythreatened cacti including the CriticallyEndangered species, listed in Table 1,are not yet recorded in ex situ collections

and BGCI is keen to hear from botanicgardens that might have these species incultivation. It is clearly important that theworld’s rarest cacti species areestablished as genetically representativeand well-documented living collectionsas an insurance policy against extinctionin the wild. In line with Target 8 of theGSPC, ex situ collections shouldpreferably be in the country of origin.For cacti however there is a globalresponsibility to conserve the speciesthat have been cultivated around theworld for over one hundred years.Curation of collections valuable forconservation purposes needs to becarried out with particular rigour.

IOS/BGCI collaboration

In botanic gardens as in privatecollections, specialist skills and a keeninterest in the species and theirrequirements will benefit the long termmaintenance of cacti in cultivation.The IOS, with a membership ofindividuals working in botanic gardensand/or with private collections, haspromoted conservation of cacti andother succulents for nearly 40 years.In 1980 the IOS published a Register ofSucculent Collections with 73 collectionsincluded, 33 of which were at botanicgardens that are now BGCI members.Under the new IOS/BGCI collaborationwe intend to assist collection holders inassessing and recognizing the resourcevalue of individual plants in theircollections, promote good practice in thedocumentation and secure labeling ofplants, promote collaboration betweencollection holders in selecting groups tobe treated as ‘specialities’ or as back-upcollections, and assist collection holderswith plant identification or verification viacontacts with IOS experts.


Ex situ collection of Parodia rechensis in Brazil

Cactus collection at the Botanic Garden ‘Viera yClavijo’, Canary Islands

The endangered Parodia rechensis growing inCaxias do Sul Botanic Garden, Brazil

The next stage in the IOS/BGCIcollaboration will be to contact specialistcactus collections to seek information onthe current status of plants maintainedand to seek further collaboration. Theintention is to maintain a shared recordof the conservation value of collectionsbased on factors such as accessionpolicy, rarity of species in the wild and incultivation, access to the material andwillingness to collaborate and exchangepropagation material. The need to reflectboth the letter and the spirit ofinternational agreements through CBDand CITES will be respected at all times.

“ 68% of threatened cacti are

recorded in botanic garden

collections.”

A joint meeting will be held at the 31stIOS Congress being organized incollaboration with the Jardin Botanico“Viera y Clavijo” in Gran Canaria. This willconsider how best to ensure that allglobally threatened cacti are conservedwith links between ex situ and in situconservation. There are some goodpractical examples to draw on. In Mexicofor example, with BGCI support, theJardín Botánico Regional de Cadereyta“Ing. Manuel González de Cosío”,Querétaro, carried out a very successfulproject conserving threatened cacti withthe participation of local communities -the species involved were Astrophytumornatum, Echinocactus grusonii,Echinocereus schmollii, Mammillariaherrerae and Thelocactus hastifer. Theproject involved establishment of acommunity nursery to propagate thespecies which have been threatened bycommercial collectors in the region.

Botanic gardens have an important roleto play in ensuring that no species ofcactus or other succulent plant becomesneedlessly extinct. Working with theexpertise available through IOS willenhance that role. At a practical level itremains a priority to develop moreprojects to support conservation of cactiin their natural habitats as far as possibleinvolving local people as custodians oftheir flora. Ex situ collections indirectlysupport such activities, allowing for

research into propagation techniques,provision of propagules for restorationand long term storage of living materialand seeds. Raising awareness of thediversity and conservation needs of cactiis another important role for botanicgardens to play.

References

, Oldfield, S. (comp.), 1997. Cactus andSucculent Plants – Status survey andconservation action plan. IUCN/SSCCactus and Succulent SpecialistGroup. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

, Taylor, N., Charles, G. and Lowry, M.,2006. Conservation assessments. In:Hunt, D. 2006. The New CactusLexicon. dh books, Milborne Port,England.

Sara OldfieldBGCIDescanso House, 199 Kew RoadRichmond, TW9 3BW, UKEmail: [email protected]

David HuntIOS SecretaryThe Manse, Milborne PortDT9 5DL, UK. Email:[email protected]


Table 1 Critically endangered cacti not currentlyrecorded in the PlantSearch Database

Taxon Country of natural distributionAcharagma aguirreanum MexicoAriocarpus bravoanus ssp. bravoanus MexicoBrowningia columnaris PeruCereus estevesii BrazilCleistocactus winteri ssp. winteri BoliviaCleistocactus xylorhizus PeruEriosyce megliolii ArgentinaHaageocereus tenuis PeruLeptocereus carinatus CubaMammillaria sanchez-mejoradae MexicoMelocactus curvispinus ssp. dawsonii MexicoMelocactus pachyacanthus ssp. viridis BrazilPilosocereus azulensis BrazilRauhocereus riosaniensis ssp. riosaniensis PeruTurbinicarpus gielsdorfianus MexicoTurbinicarpus mandragora ssp. mandragora MexicoTurbinicarpus mandragora ssp. pailanus MexicoTurbinicarpus saueri ssp. saueri MexicoTurbinicarpus schmiedickeanus ssp. andersonii MexicoTurbinicarpus schmiedickeanus ssp. jauernigii MexicoTurbinicarpus schmiedickeanus ssp. rioverdensis MexicoTurbinicarpus subterraneus ssp. subterraneus Mexico

One of the valuable ways in which thePlantSearch database can be used bybotanic gardens – or other ex situplant collections – is to help audit aparticular collection. Such an auditwas undertaken to assess therelevance and merit of the major glasshouse collection of cacti at theNational Botanic Garden of Belgium atMeise. The plants were verified byindependent experts, Dr David Hunt,IOS Secretary and Dr Nigel Taylor ofRBG, Kew in July 2007. Updating thenomenclature used in the Garden’srecord systems was an importantstep. To determine the conservationimportance of the collection, the list ofspecies present in the collection wascompared against the PlantSearchdatabase. Taking one species example

of the Meise collection, thePlantSearch database showed thatWeberbauerocereus cuzcoensis grownat the National Botanic Garden ofBelgium, was recorded by only oneother botanic garden. Overall the auditfound that of the approximately 1,600cactus taxa grown by the NationalBotanic Garden, only about one-thirdhad conservation, education orresearch merit. Only 21 out of 251wild-collected accessions wereconsidered valuable for conservationpurposes. The National BotanicGarden took the bold decision todonate over 1000 cacti to otherinstitutions including the MuseumNational d’Histoire Naturelle in Parisfor use in education and display andalso to discard surplus specimens.

Box 1: Cactus audit at the National Botanic Garden of Belgium

Cactus collection at Bonn Botanic Garden, Germany

The public garden community has adaunting task at hand to answer the“call to arms” for plant conservation

outlined in the Global Strategy for PlantConservation (GSPC) (CBD, 2002) and,for gardens in North America, the NorthAmerican Botanic Garden Strategy forPlant Conservation (NABGSPC) (BCGI,2006). Such a task requires theintegration of a variety of garden activitiesranging from awareness-building andadvocacy, to floristics work and in situmonitoring. Not to be discounted arewell-documented living collections, which

are acknowledged in Target 8 of theGSPC (Box 1) as one of the greatestassets of public gardens. Many gardens,however, do not have access to vitalinformation about their collections,including threat status of correspondingnatural populations. Fortunately, BGCI’sPlantSearch database (http://bgci.org/plant_search.php) offers a vital resourceto aid gardens, and includes significantbenefits for the botanical community. Inlight of this important resource, we offerthis case study to provide insight into thePlant Upload process.

Identifying threatened plants

The mission of the Arnold Arboretum ofHarvard University (hereafter, theArboretum) supports a “greaterunderstanding, appreciation, andstewardship of the Earth’s botanicaldiversity”. Like other gardens, theArboretum includes plant conservationwithin the scope of its mission and hasidentified threatened plants as a priorityin its Living Collections Policy (LivingCollections Committee, 2007). To furtherthese efforts, we are developing a novelconservation analysis that prioritizesthreatened taxa within the collection forvarious curatorial actions. One of theinitial steps is the identification ofthreatened taxa.

“ We used BGCI’s PlantSearch

database to help us identify

threatened plants in our

collections.”To help us identify threatened plants inour collection, we used the BGCIPlantSearch database to provide up-to-date IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2009)threatened species information.We followed the online Plant Upload


GETTING THEMOST OUT OFYOUR BGCI PLANT UPLOAD

Authors: Abby Hird and Michael Dosmann

BGCI’s PlantSearch database provides a unique tool formeasuring progress towards Target 8 of the GlobalStrategy for Plant Conservation.

Paeonia suffruticosa v papaveracea Vulnerable (IUCN). Conservation status previously not recognized in theArnold Arboretum living collections (Nancy Rose)

Box 1. Global Strategy for PlantConservation: Target 8

60 per cent of threatened plantspecies in accessible ex situcollections, preferably in the countryof origin, and 10 per cent of themincluded in recovery and restorationprogrammes.

* Refers to the variety of taxonomic entities present in the living collections and plant recordsdatabase** Names arranged by Plant Upload criteria: genhyb (generic hybrid), gen (genus), sphyb(specific hybrid), sp (specific epithet), isprk (infra-specific rank), isp (infra-specific epithet), andcul (cultivar). Commas present in fields not containing data.

genhyb

,,,X,X,,,,,,,,

gen

ABELIAABIESCRATAEGUSCUPRESSOCYPARISFOTHERGILLAMAHOBERBERISMALUSMALUSNYSSARHODODENDRONSORBUSSPIRAEATILIATORREYA

sphyb

,X,,X,X,,X,X,,

sp

chinensisborisii-regisoxyacanthaleylandii,neubertiirobustadomesticasp.(bakeri x viscosum)aucupariaargutadasystylataxifolia

isprk

,,V,,,V,,,F,S,

isp

,,,,,,persicifolia,,,albertiana,caucasica,

cul

,,,Haggerston Grey,,,Antonovka,,,Compacta,,

Table 1. Examples of Arnold Arboretum nomenclatural diversity* in requiredBGCI Plant Upload .CSV format**

instructions (http://bgci.org/worldwide/plant_upload/) and submitted a .CVS(comma separated value) file containinga list of our taxa (Table 1) via our BGCIgarden profile. Within 24 hours of theupload, the PlantSearch databaseverified each of our plant names usingan automated IPNI (International PlantNames Index, www.ipni.org) query.

The results: a list of “accepted” taxa withany associated IUCN Red List informationavailable to download from our BGCIgarden profile, and a list of taxa notrecognized by IPNI or the PlantSearchdatabase sent to us via e-mail.

Using BGCI’s PlantSearchdatabase

The first time we logged on to theArboretum’s BGCI profile in early 2008,we were surprised to find only 112 taxalisted on our plants list – 28 of themlisted as threatened. We knew this wasnot an accurate representation of ourcollections so we commenced with thefirst upload attempt in 2008, andelectronically submitted all 4,046 taxa inthe Arboretum living collections. Uponreviewing the accepted and rejectedtaxa reported following the upload, wefound that nearly 40% of the taxa wesubmitted were not included on eitherlist and therefore missing (Table 2).A closer look at the data submitted toBGCI showed wide nomenclaturaldiversity (Table 1), and we hypothesizedthat some of the names may havecaused ambiguous results via the IPNIquery. For example, we wondered ifnames with multiple infra-specific ranks


Heptacodium miconioides Vulnerable (IUCN),formally assigned conservation value as a result ofthe BGCI upload (Michael Dosmann)

Metasequoia glyptostroboides Critically Endangered(IUCN) (Arnold Arboretum Archives)

(e.g., Picea glauca var. albertiana f.conica), names without a specific epithet(e.g., Weigela ‘Bristol Ruby’ or Nyssasp.), or even cultivars or hybrids couldcause problems during the uploadprocess.

Following the first upload, we contactedMeirion Jones, Head of InformationManagement at BGCI, to inquire aboutour experience. Through thesediscussions, we determined the need forfurther testing to identify potentialproblems between the types of plantnames submitted and the upload results.We completed three unique datauploads in the summer of 2008, andrepeated them again in the fall of 2009(Table 1). They consisted of all taxa(Upload 1), all non-cultivar and non-hybrid taxa (Upload 2), and all taxa witha specific or hybrid epithet (Upload 3) inthe Arboretum living collections. Inaddition to the “control” aspect of the

first upload, Upload 2 sought todetermine if hybrids and cultivars wereproblematic during the upload process,and Upload 3 attempted to establish ifthe presence or absence of a specificepithet made any difference in uploadresults.

Lessons learnt

What did we learn from these variousupload strategies? Simply conductingan upload in the first place resulted inthe largest increase: Upload 1 in 2008yielded numbers of cultivated andthreatened taxa approximately 20- and8-times greater than before, respectively(Table 2). A comparison of Upload 1results between 2008 and 2009 alsoshowed significant improvements in thenumbers of accepted and missing taxa.It is probable that upgrades to the IPNI,BGCI, and the Arboretum plant records

databases were responsible for thesenoticeable changes, as new informationacquired, data cleaned, etc. Among thethree upload versions, resultsdemonstrate relative stability in thereturn of threatened taxa. However, witha goal of submitting as broad a sampleof our plant records data to maximizetaxonomic representation both on theBGCI database and in our conservationanalysis, Uploads 1 and 3 seem to bethe most effective. Finally, thedifferences between the two years, evenif minor, illustrate the importance ofupdating our data regularly.

“ It is clearly important to

update your records

regularly.”

Beyond our own institution-specific needto identify the Arboretum’s globallythreatened holdings, this processbenefits others as well. Our collectionsinformation is now part of BGCI’sPlantSearch database and is availableonline to anyone. Although our plantinventory is already accessible online,this provides yet another resource andhelps us achieve NABGSPC Target B4,Sub-Target 3 (Box 2). Furthermore, our


Box 3. To get the most out of yourPlantSearch Upload, we suggestthe following tips:

• First, check your garden’s BGCIprofile! Is the number of taxa listedrepresentative of your garden’scurrent living collections?

• Consider the taxonomiccomposition of your garden’s livingcollections. Do the taxa agree withthe IPNI database? Can anyobscure names be updated orremoved from your list? Inspect thedata you submit to the PlantUpload, and possibly do somedata cleaning.

• Update your garden’s Plant Uploadon an annual basis – gardens andthreat ranks change!

Box 2. North American BotanicGarden Strategy for PlantConservation, Target B4, Sub-Target 3:

75% of gardens that maintain plantrecord databases participate bysharing their plant collections listwith the global BGCI database ofplants in cultivation.

Franklinia alatamaha Extinct in the Wild (IUCN), theArnold Arboretum has the oldest and largestspecimens in North America (Nancy Rose)

Magnolia amoena Vulnerable (IUCN) (Arnold Arboretum Archives)

threatened taxa can be included inglobal assessments like the Target 8assessment of the 2009 PlantConservation Report (CBD, 2009).

Lastly, this process facilitated a numberof very fruitful conversations amongArboretum staff, IPNI, and BGCIrepresentatives that have helpedimprove all of our efforts.

Key points:

Dynamic collections, Dynamic worldWith respect to the differences in thetotal taxa we submitted (4,046 vs. 3,989)in 2008 and 2009 (Table 1), it is vital tonote that living collections are constantlyin flux, as are threat ranks (IUCN updatesRed List threat ranks on an annualbasis). Thus, the Plant Upload should beconducted by gardens annually toensure all datasets are up to date.

Accurate conservation informationWe compared the threatened namesreported via the Upload, with IUCN dataobtained independently, and foundapproximately 95% congruency. Thisconfirms the valuable benefits of usingthe Upload.

Data updates by GardensPerhaps the most important take-homemessage from this small case study

relates to our initial increase from 28 tonearly 250 known globally threatenedtaxa in our living collections. This begsthe questions: How many other gardensface similar circumstances? Are weunderestimating species richness andgenetic diversity of cultivated plants inpublic gardens simply because ofinsufficient data? And, even if you haverecently uploaded your garden’scollection data to the database, howcomplete and representative are they?

Call to GardensBased on our experience, wewholeheartedly advocate for a specific“call to gardens”. To have a significantimpact upon global ex situ plantconservation efforts, contribute yourgarden’s plant records to the BGCIPlantSearch database. The benefits aretwofold: a greater understanding of theconservation value of your own garden’scollections, and an increase in theknown world’s cultivated taxa and ex situconservation holdings.

References

, Botanic Gardens ConservationInternational, 2006. The NorthAmerican Strategy for PlantConservation, Botanic GardensConservation International, UK.

, Botanic Gardens ConservationInternational, 2009. PlantSearchUpload. <http://www.bgci.org/worldwide/plant_upload/> Accessedon 20 October 2009.

, CBD, 2002. Global Strategy for PlantConservation, The Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity.

, CBD Secretariat and the GlobalPartnership for Plant Conservation,2009. Plant Conservation Report: AReview of Progress in Implementingthe Global Strategy for PlantConservation (GSPC), Secretariat ofthe Convention on Biological Diversity.

, IUCN, 2009. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2009.2.<www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloadedon 3 November 2009.

, Living Collections Committee, 2007.Living Collections Policy. The ArnoldArboretum of Harvard University.

Abby Hird2008-2010 Putnam FellowEmail: [email protected]

Michael Dosmann,Curator of Living CollectionsEmail: [email protected]

The Arnold Arboretum ofHarvard University125 ArborwayJamaica Plain, MA 02130, USAhttp://www.arboretum.harvard.edu


The BGCI PlantSearch database provides collectionsinformation about gardens worldwide and enablesbeneficial exchanges within the botanical community

Year Upload Version Submitteda Acceptedb Threatenedc Rejectedd Missinge

Pre-2008 Unkown - 112 28 - -

2008 Upload 1 – All taxa in the living collections 4,046 2,365 247 234 1,447

Upload 2 – All non-cultivar, non-hybrid taxa: 2,201 2,047 257 138 16

species or infra-specific (sub-species,

varieties and formae)

Upload 3 – All taxa with a specific or hybrid 3,601 3,421 267 144 36

epithet: species, hybrids, cultivars or infra-

specific (sub-species, varieties and formae)

2009 Upload 1 – All taxa in the living collection 3,989 3,412 258 476 101

Upload 2 – All non-cultivar, non-hybrid taxa: 2,203 2,077 255 114 12

species or infra-specific (sub-species,

varieties and formae)

Upload 3 – All taxa with a specific or hybrid 3,592 3,348 258 142 102

epithet: species, hybrids, cultivars or infra-

specific (sub-species, varieties and formae)

a Number of taxa submitted to the upload; b Number of taxa accepted via the upload IPNI query;

c Number of taxa assigned an IUCN Red List rank via the upload; d Number of taxa rejected via the upload IPNI query;

e Number of taxa not included as ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’ via the upload.

Table 2. 2008-2009 BGCI Plant Upload tests for the Arnold Arboretum LivingCollections


Background

For threatened plants, ex situconservation is generallyconsidered to be a temporary or

transitional stage in a long-term strategyaimed at achieving conservation in situ.However, for those taxa that are extinctin the wild, ex situ conservation in livingplant collections provides the onlylifeline. For such plants, their naturalhabitat may have entirely disappeared ortheir seeds cannot be stored.

Since the late 1980’s, I have maintaineda database of those taxa that aredocumented to be extinct (EX) or extinctin the wild (EW) as defined by IUCN(2001). This is by no means a complete

list as only published documented casesare included. This is to prevent theinclusion of species such as Tecophilaeacyanocrocus (Watson, 2008) which waslisted as extinct until extensive in situsurveys were conducted and the specieswas rediscovered in great abundance.

Of the 844 extinct taxa in the database,72 are listed as still being present incultivation. Having monitored these taxafor more than 20 years, I have beensurprised at the lack of focus on thesetaxa and am concerned about theircontinued long-term survival. I have alsoidentified 39 taxa that used to be incultivation but have now apparentlydisappeared altogether. The reasons forthe apparent lack of interest is possibly

because conservation conventions andinfrastructure have largely used ex situcollections as a means to support in situconservation rather than as aconservation focus in itself. Forthreatened plants that survive in situ, thisis of course the right strategy. Howeverthis can mean that those species thatare extinct in the wild are not given theattention they deserve.

“ I am concerned by the lack

of focus on conserving plants

that are extinct in the wild.”Although Target 8 of the Global Strategyfor Plant Conservation (GSPC) focuseson ex situ conservation, no specificmeasures or infrastructure have beenestablished to deal with the specificvulnerabilities of EW plants in cultivation.The only targeted publication to datewas one published by IUCN/BGCI in1989. As we are only dealing with asmall number of taxa, I believe that withlittle effort an effective infrastructurecould be set up to ensure the long-termsurvival of EW taxa in ex situ collections.It is especially important for these taxato conserve all the surviving geneticdiversity- in other words - everyindividual counts.

“ When dealing with nearly

extinct taxa, every individual

counts.”Over the years I have identified a rangeof problems faced by extinct taxa. Theseare listed below, together with somepossible solutions. Although many ofthe examples are from the Royal Botanic

SAFEGUARDING EXTINCT PLANTSIN EX SITU COLLECTIONS

Author: Rafael Govaerts

Ex situ collections may provide the only lifeline for anincreasing number of species – but are we taking thenecessary steps to ensure their survival?

Tulipa sprengeri in a forgotton corner of the garden


Gardens (RBG), Kew (my homeinstitution), this is not because thesituation here is particularly bad, butrather that it is representative of thegeneral situation. It should also benoted that many extinct taxa are beinggrown at RBG Kew and the gardenshave had notable success in saving anumber of taxa from certain extinction.

1. Trophy plants

The best example in this category isundoubtedly Encephalartos woodii whichis widespread in collections (11 are listedin the BGCI PlantSearch database).Although individual trophy plants arenormally well taken care of, little effortmay be made to propagate them. Afterall if you have more than one in yourcollection you can no longer tell thevisiting public that it is the only survivingspecimen. The danger of course is thatwhen the one individual dies, none areleft. Encephalartos is after all relativelyeasy to propagate from leaf-cuttings.There is also the option of multiplyingthe plant by micropropagation, with theview of potentially creating femalespecimens in the future. The quest forthe creation of a female specimen hasfor the moment been taken up by acommercial company (Hurter, 2008),possibly due to the limited resourcesavailable in many botanic gardens. E.relictus is in an identical situation to E.woodii. Although it is less of an icon,there is still the need for a well organisedstrategy to be in place to ensure thesurvival of this taxon.

Trophy plants, by their very nature, areespecially vulnerable to theft. Withspecimens of E. woodii being valued at$20,000 on the open market, it is notsurprising that plants are regularly stolenfrom collections.

Although trophy plants can be useful inpromoting awareness amongst the publicof plant extinction risks, it is importantthat the bigger picture is not forgotten,and efforts are made to continuepropagating the taxon. Of course onlyone individual need be put on display tomaintain the power of its story.

2. Horticultural fashions

Some of the extinct plants in cultivationare widely grown and easy to cultivate,such as Tulipa sprengeri. The original

plant was collected in Amasya, Turkeyand it has been maintained inhorticulture and botanic gardens eversince (18 gardens are listed in BGCI’sPlantSearch database). As it iscommonly seen in gardens, is easy tocultivate and often naturalises fromseed, it may not be consideredimportant and may end up in a forgottencorner somewhere. The danger is thatbecause of this lack of vigilance, thespecimens may be accidentallydestroyed. Tulips suffer from a multitudeof diseases so it is a distinct possibilitythat a disease could appear and destroyall plants in a given locality in a shortperiod of time. As mentioned before,it is very important for the survival of aspecies to maintain all existing diversity,even for a common taxon.

The greatest danger of relying onhorticulture for long-term survival is ofcourse that fashions change and theplant may become unpopular. Thespecies may then disappear fromhorticulture altogether, as is the casewith Hindsia violacea, now thought to becompletely extinct.

“ As fashions change, rare

species may disappear from

horticulture altogether.”Conservation of extinct plants shouldremain immune from fashion and eachspecies, even each individual, should bevalued equally. For a species like T.sprengeri, seed banking would probablybe the best option for long termconservation. Unfortunately however,many seed banks have a policy ofstoring only seeds collected from wildorigin plants – thus excluding speciesthat are extinct in the wild. It is good toknow that the Millennium Seed Bank atWakehurst Place has recently relaxed itsrules and now has a programme ofcollecting seeds from threatened plantsin cultivation.

3. Project – the dirty word

Much conservation work is funding asprojects. The first problem with this isthat projects are by definition short-term,mostly 3-5 years. This may be the rightstrategy for many aspects of plantconservation but is definitely inadequatefor the long-term survival of species.

Kew has been involved in saving anumber of species before they becameextinct in the wild. Typically thesespecies are a priority for a few years,but once the initial rescue project iscompleted, resources are focussedelsewhere and the species’ survivalprospects decline. Commidendrumrotundifolium for example wasdiscovered as a single surviving tree in1982. Thanks to the skills of Kew’smicropropagation unit, the species wassuccessfully propagated. In 1986 thesingle wild tree was destroyed by asevere gale and by 1991 the lastremaining plant at Kew Gardens haddied as well. Now only a few treesremain in cultivation on St. Helenaseemingly unable to produce viableseeds.

The defined nature of projects can alsopose a problem, with activities lyingoutside such projects not beingsupported. One such example is that ofAnthurium leuconeurum. This species

Attempts made to reintroduce Lysimachiaminoricensis in the wild have until now failed


was only collected once in Chiapas,Mexico and has not been seen since.Although it is widespread in cultivation,until 1999 it had never been recorded toproduce seeds (Govaerts & Frodin,2002). However, once seeds wereproduced, no institution could beidentified with a relevant conservationproject into which continued work onthis taxon could fit. Consequently, anopportunity was missed to take thesurvival of this species forward with apossible view to reintroduce it into thewild.

4. Refocus and restructuring

These are words commonly used thesedays, all too frequently as a euphemismfor financial and staff cuts. Such cutsoften go unnoticed and may result inextinct plant material dying or beingdestroyed. One such example is Bromuseburonensis, the only Belgian endemic(except for perhaps some microspecieslike Rubus prei). It, together with thenear-endemic B. bromoideus andartificial crosses used in researchexperiments were for many decadescultivated at the Botanical Garden of theUniversity of Liège. However, when theactivities were scaled down and the areatransformed to a public park, the plantsdisappeared as well.

This situation could be avoided if aninternational infrastructure were to be setup to track which institutions care forextinct taxa, and identifying when theyare no longer able to continue to do so.A simple allocation of responsibilitiesand annual reporting on the state ofhealth of extinct taxa might be trialled.

The bottom line of course is thatsufficient funding should be madeavailable for institutions to continue tomaintain important collections ofthreatened plants.

5. Knowledge is survival

Even though we live in the age of instantaccess to information and most botanicgardens have their collections databased,with the possibility to include IUCN redlist categories, this information does notalways get to the horticulturalists andgardeners that look after the actualplants. A recent example is that ofAechmea serrata. The Bromeliad livingcollection, as well as the electronic data

attached to it, is very well managed atKew Gardens. Nevertheless theConservation category for this taxon wasblank. So the person in charge was notaware of the importance of this plant andthe possible conservation implications.While it is important for databases to bemore closely linked so that relevantinformation is always available, a morepractical, immediate action could be touse red-coloured labels for extinct andcritically endangered plants. In this way,the information is not lost when staffchange or temporary staff take over thecare of these valuable plants.

Conclusion

After monitoring extinct plants incultivation for more than twenty years,I’m afraid the conclusion must still bethat most are not yet safe fromaccidental loss. The main solution mustcertainly be better access to informationby linking garden databases directly tothe IUCN red list (this can be donethrough BGCI’s PlantSearch database) aswell as appropriate labelling. Also bettercommunication between botanic gardensand conservation organisations shouldbe pursued by creating a framework thatmonitors, either formally or informally,extinct plants in cultivation. This could bestrengthened by providing a protocol towhich participating gardens wouldcommit. Saving the last individual fromextinction can be very expensive - effortsshould be made to ensure this does notneed to happen again and again.

References

, BGCI PlantSearch, published on theinternet [http://www.bgci.org/plant_search.php]. accessed September2009.

, Govaerts, R. and Frodin, D.G., 2002.World Checklist and Bibliography ofAraceae (and Acoraceae). 560 pp. TheBoard of Trustees of the Royal BotanicGardens, Kew.

, Hurter, M., 2008. The differentEncephalartos woodii plants.Encephalartos 94: 31-35.

, IUCN, 2001. 2001 IUCN Red ListCategories and Criteria version 3.1.[http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1]

, IUCN Botanic Gardens ConservationSecretariat, 1989. Extinct plant speciesof the world.

, Watson, J.M., 2008. Tecophilaeacyanocrocus: demolishing badscience. Herbertia 62: 209-240.

Rafael GovaertsWorld Checklist ProgrammeHerbarium, Library, Art andArchivesRBG Kew, TW9 3AE, UKEmail: [email protected]

A flowering Anthurium leuconeurum grown in a greenhouse in strong competition with common Marantaceae


Introduction

The ‘Flora and Vegetation of Armenia’plot at the Yerevan Botanic Gardenholds one of the oldest ex situ

collections in the Caucasus. Thecollection contains up to 1,000 species ofArmenian flora. Plants of various types(herbs, semi-shrubs, shrubs, trees) andbio-ecological groups (geophytes,succulents, lianas, water-plants etc.) areincluded in the collection. This collectionreflects the main elements of the plantkingdom in the Armenian Republic, withmodels of the main types of plant

communities recreated, including thosethreatened in the wild. The mostcharacteristic taxonomic composition ofthe flora is selected for each type ofvegetation modeled at the plot. Priority isgiven to rare and threatened species,endemics, insufficiently studied species,and to the species of educational,ornamental or economic value.

“ Crop wild relatives are an

important focus of the

collections at the Yerevan

botanic garden.”The long history of introducing wild plantsinto cultivation at the plot has contributedto ex situ conservation of the biodiversityof Armenia, including genetic resourcesof native crop wild relatives (CWR).Special attention has been given to thecrop wild relatives since 2007, when thecollection was enriched during fieldsurveys conducted within the frameworkof the UNEP/GEF funded Crop WildRelatives projects. Today the plotincludes more then 200 CWR species(from 130 genera), relatives of food,fodder, ornamental, industrial andmedicinal crops (Akopian, 2009). Alsothere are 38 wild relative species from 25genera of pome, stone, small fruit, vine,nut and other fruit crops. Among themthe collection boasts wild pear speciesnative to the Armenian flora.

The territory of Armenia, especially thesouthern and south-eastern regions ofthe country is a center of highpolymorphism and local narrowendemism in the genus Pyrus (Akopian,2007). Intensive speciation in the genushas been promoted by several factors,including spatial isolation due tofragmentation of the land; drying of theclimate, intensive hybridization, as well along history in the area of breeding newpear varieties from ancestral species,which escape back to wild. Speciationprocesses in the pear forests of Armeniacontinue today (Mulkidzhanyan, 1973).

Creation of an indigenous wild pearcollection at the ‘Flora and vegetation ofArmenia’ Plot was initiated in the middleof the last century and continues to thepresent. Pear specimens were collectedfrom their natural habitats from variousdistricts of Armenia and replanted in theplot. The life cycle of wild pears is up to50-80 years. Under ex situ conditions, as

EX SITU CONSERVATIONOFWILD PEAR, PYRUS L. (ROSACEAE) SPECIESAT THE YEREVAN BOTANIC GARDEN, ARMENIA

Authors: J. A. Akopian

Armenia is a centre of diversity for wild pear speciesand the collection at the Yerevan Botanic Gardenprovides a useful resource for researchers andeducationalists.

Pyrus oxyprion fruits (J. Akopian)

Pyrus sosnovskyi in flower (J. Akopian)


in nature, wild pears propagate by seedsand by root suckers. The plants flower inApril - May, before the leaves appearand they are cross-pollinated by insects.Fruits ripen from September to October.

All ex situ species observed are relativelydrought-tolerant and frost-resistant, anddo not demand highly fertile soils.Presently the following species of Pyrusare maintained at the plot (see Table 1):

The characteristics of some of thespecies are provided below:

P. caucasica Fed. Tree 10 - 20 m high,thorny, Buds are from pale rose to white,flowers white, fruits round or slightlyoblate. In the ex situ collection, it is weaklyshade tolerant and is resistant todiseases. It has a dense and beautifulwood. Fruits have a varied taste and areused fresh and dried, for production ofvinegar and wine, and for cooking. Inhorticulture the seedlings of P. caucasicaare used as a rootstock for cultivatedpears. It is considered to be the ancestorof several native pear cultivars.

In Armenia it grows in broad-leavedforests, by river valleys, from 600 to2,200 masl. The species was describedfrom Armenia. General distribution:

Caucasus, Northern and South-WesternAnatolia. Highly polymorphic species,allied species is P. communis L.

P. georgica Kuth. Tree, seldom shrub,3-9 m high, thorny. Flowers are plentiful,small. On the plot it blooms earlier thanother pear species. Fruits are numerous,small, globular-pear shaped, green, verysoft and sweet.

In Armenia it grows in broad-leavedforests, on arid slopes, from 1,200 up to2,500 masl. The species was describedfrom Georgia, it is endemic to Caucasus.The allied species are P. elaeagnifoliaPall, P. salicifolia Pall.

P. medvedevii Rubtzov. Tree 10-12 mhigh, usually thorny. Fruits are small,green-yellow, soft, sour-sweet.

In Armenia P. medvedevii grows in aridlight forests, from 1,400 up to 2,200masl. It was described fromNakhichevan. Endemic to and rare inSouthern Transcaucasia. The alliedspecies: P. laeagnifolia Pall., P. salicifoliaPall., P. syriaca Boiss.

P. oxyprion Woronow. Tree up to 5 mhigh, with dense canopy, thorny. Fruitspear-shaped, green, very hard, ripenlate. It is very ornamental with glossygreen leaves, and numerous rose-coloured flowers.

In Armenia it grows in arid light forests,from 1,400 up to 1,900 masl. Thespecies was described from North-Eastern Anatolia. General distribution:Southern Transcaucasia, Northern Iran,

Pyrus salicifolia in flower (S.Mnatsakanyan)

Pyrus salicifolia fruit (S. Mnatsakanyan)

Pyrus medvedevii fruit (S. Mnatsakanyan)

Table 1. Wild pear collection at the ‘Flora and vegetation of Armenia’ plot.

Pyrus L. species Origin Initial material Year of first(districts of Armenia) introduction

P. caucasica Fed. Gegharkunik, Kotayk Seedlings 1952,1969P. georgica Kuth. Meghri Seeds 1955P. medvedewii Rubtzov Vayots Dzor Seedlings 1958P. oxyprion Woronow Meghri Seedlings 1955P. salicifolia Pall. Meghri Seedlings, seeds 1955P. sosnovskyi Fed. Kotayk Seedlings 1974P. takhtadzianii Fed. Vayots Dzor Seedlings 1958P. tamamschjanae Fed. Kotayk Seedlings 1974P. zangezura Maleev Sjunik Seedlings 1968, 1982


North-Eastern Anatolia. The alliedspecies are P. salicifolia Pall., P. syriacaBoiss., P. fedorovii Kuth.

P. salicifolia Pall. Tree 5 - 10 m high,very thorny. Flowers are from light roseto white. Fruits usually are single, roundor pear-shaped, brown-golden. P.salicifolia is ornamental both in flowersand fruits. It is highly drought- and frost-resistant, can tolerate frosts down to-320C. In horticulture its seedlings arewidely used as rootstocks. P. salicifoliaplayed an important role in the origin ofcultivated pear varieties.

In Armenia it grows in mountain and aridlight forests, on scree and rock slopes, inhill foots, from 600 up to 2,200 masl.The species was described fromCiscaucasia. General distribution:Caucasus, North-Western Iran, North-Eastern Anatolia. The allied species areP. elaeagnifolia Pall, P. georgica Kuth.

P. sosnovskyi Fed. Small tree or shrubwith thick crown, Fruits are small,orbicular or shortly pear-shaped, yellow-green, soft, sour-sweet.

It grows in arid or broad-leaved andjuniper forests, on the stony slopes, from1,000 up to 2,000 masl. Endemic to andrare in Armenia. The allied species are P.communis L., P. caucasica Fed.

P. takhtadzhianii Fed. Thornless tree 5-7 m high, It has large, pear-shaped,brown, juicy fruits. According to someauthors, it originated from ancient localpear cultivars, and is a secondaryescape into the wild. P. takhtadzhianii isornamental with a crown of grayishleaves of various shapes.

In Armenia it grows in broad-leaved andarid light forests, among mountainousxerophytic vegetation, from 800 up to2,200 masl. The species was described

from Armenia. Endemic to Transcaucasia.The allied species are P. communis L., P.elaeagnifolia Pall., P. salicifolia Pall.

P. tamamschjanae Fed. Tree 3-5 mhigh, usually thornless. Fruits are pear-shaped, sweet and soft, with the shaperesembling that of cultivated pears. It isornamental, especially in autumn withred colored leaves.

It grows in arid light and in broad-leavedforests, from 1,600 up to 2,200 m.Endemic to and rare in Armenia. Theallied species are P. communis L., P.sosnovskyi Fed.

Pyrus caucasica at the beginning of flowering (J. Akopian)

Pyrus georgica in flower (J. Akopian)Pyrus caucasica fruits (J. Akopian)

P. zangezura Maleev. Tree 10 m tall,usually thornless, Fruits pear-shaped-globular, after ripening soft, sour-sweet.P. zangezura is a highly frost - resistantspecies.

In Armenia it grows in broad-leavedmountainous forests, from 1,500 up to2,300 m. The species was describedfrom Armenia. Endemic to and rare inSouthern Transcaucasia. The alliedspecies is P. syriaca Boiss., which is oneof main ancestors of cultivated pears.

Most of observed pear specimens havebeen growing in the plot collection formore than 30-50 years. The duration ofplant specimens’ existence in the livingcollection is an important indicator of the

capacity of wild plants to survive underex situ cultivation. So, all wild pearspecies introduced to the plot, can beclassified as adaptable for ex situcultivation and conservation. Under exsitu conditions they develop normally andmultiply. At the plot they are also nowrepresented by young specimens. Somewild pear species (P. caucasica, P.medvedevii, P. salicifolia, P.tamamschjanae) demonstrate potentialfor intensive vegetative reproductionunder ex situ conditions, thus providingliving materials for rare speciesreintroduction to the natural habitats.Furthermore, most of the researched pearspecies are very ornamental and can beused in landscape gardening. They arevaluable as food, medicinal and honeyplants and for breeding drought-tolerantand frost - resistant pear cultivars.

The genus Pyrus poses difficulties forresearchers, because of its remarkablespecies polymorphism and variability.The specimens in the collection aretherefore interesting for scientificresearches in the field of taxonomy,morphology and biology. Data obtainedfrom the collection is used in the Instituteof Botany’s Manual of Plants of Armenia.The collection also provides living ex situmaterial for the forthcoming project‘Fruits for a sustainable future -Assessing the patterns of diversity of thegenus Pyrus in Transcaucasia’ within thecontext of the ‘Pan-Caucasian PlantBiodiversity Initiative - Developing toolsfor the Conservation of Plant Diversity inthe Transcaucasus’.

The native wild pear collection alsoprovides the basis for an exhibition thathas educational significance and is ofinterest for visitors of the YerevanBotanic Garden.

References

, Akopian, J.A., 2009. Crop wild relativeconservation on the plot ‘Flora andvegetation of Armenia’ of the YerevanBotanical Garden. Electronic J. ofNatural Sciences, 2(13): 3-7. websitehttp://www.epnet.comhttp://www.ejns.sci.am

, Akopian, J. A., 2007. On the Pyrus L.(Rosaceae) species in Armenia. Flora,vegetation and plant resources ofArmenia, 16. Armenian Academy ofSciences, Yerevan. Pp. 15-26.

, Mulkidzhanyan, Ya. I., 1973. New dataon the pears of the Near East. Bulletinof Moscow Society of Naturalists,Biological Series, 78, 2. MoscowUniversity Publishing, Moscow. Pp.145 - 146.

J.A AkopianInstitute of Botany of theNational Academy of Sciences,Republic of Armenia.Email: [email protected]

28 BGCI • 2010 • BGjournal • Vol 7 (1)

Pyrus oxyprion in flower (J. Akopian)

Pyrus sosnovskyi fruits (J. Akopian)

Pyrus georgica fruits (J. Akopian)

BOOKS AND JOURNALS

Ex situ plant conservation - Supportingspecies survival in the wildEdward O. Guerrant Jr., Kayri Havens andMike Maunder (eds), 2004

This book is based on a conference held inthe Chicago Botanic Garden in 1999,entitled “Strategies for Survival: Ex SituPlant Conservation”. It provides essentialreading for botanic garden staff, whetherthe gardens have formal conservationprogrammes or not.

Ex situ plant conservation was in the pastseen as largely irrelevant to in situconservation, which was regarded as thepreferred means for conservation. Howeverthis book explains how well-managed exsitu collections can make the criticaldifference between extinction and survival.Moreover, the authors claim that ex situconservation is the responsibility of botanicgardens, with their collections and other exsitu facilities such as seed banks, beingamongst the most extensive yet underusedplant conservation resources in the world.In the introduction Sir Ghillean Prance alsoemphasizes the important role of botanicgardens in conservation in responding tothe challenges of today’s world.

Part I discusses the role of ex situconservation in integrated conservationprogrammes and the scientific rigourrequired for the collection, storage and useof the collections. These papers cover thephilosophical and ethical concerns withexamples of integrated conservation inWestern Australia and the United Statesand a chapter on lessons from zoos.Part II reviews the ‘Tools of the trade’from horticulture, seed and pollen to tissueculture. It addresses one of the maincriticisms of ex situ collections for

conservation, that thesamples of growingplant, tissues or seedare subject to geneticmodification; Part III

reviews the effect of selection pressures ofthe horticultural and storage environmentand provides practical steps to mitigatethese pressures. Part IV assesses the roleof ex situ plant conservation for stemmingthe loss of biodiversity and makes practicalrecommendations, notably an urgent needfor investment in infrastructure andhorticultural skills. This Part providespractical guidelines for genetic sampling,seed storage and the management ofcollections.

Island Press, Covelo, U.S.A. 424 pp.ISBN 1-55963-875-3 (paperback)ISBN 1 55963 874 5 (hardback)

Ecological restoration. Principles, valuesand structure of an emerging professionA. F. Clewell and J. Aronson

This book is a concise reference documentthat will be valuable to all interested in orinvolved in ecological restoration.Fundamental principles such as theimportant selection of a reference model andthe recognition of people as ecologicalinfluences are addressed in generalintroductory chapters. The underlyingimportance of plant species composition isstressed as, “it is the plant community thatgives an ecosystem its structure andprovides habitat.” The book’s later chaptersare aimed at more experienced practitionersof ecological restoration. Case studies ofecological restoration projects around theworld are included as “virtual field trips”.Included as an Appendix are the Society forEcological Restoration International’s,Guidelines for developing and managingecological restoration projects, 2nd Edition.

The book builds onand develops theSociety for EcologicalRestorationInternational’s Primerof Ecological Restoration(http://www.ser.org/content/ecological_restoration_primer.asp), of which Clewelland Aronson were among the threeprinciple authors.

Available from Island Press as part ofthe book series “The Science and Practiceof Ecological Restoration.”ISBN: 978-1597261692. 2007.

Details of other publications published forthe Society of Ecological RestorationInternational can be found at the website:www.ser.org

Seed conservation: turning science intopracticeR.D. Smith, J.B. Dickie, S.H. Linington,H.W. Pritchard, R.J. Probert, eds. 2003.

This substantial and comprehensive bookon seed conservation, i.e. the use of seedstorage for ex situ plant genetic resourcesconservation (non-domesticated as well ascrop species), results from an internationalworkshop of the same title hosted by theRoyal Botanic Gardens, Kew at its (then)new Wellcome Trust Millennium Building,Wakehurst Place, West Sussex, UK in 2001.Its 56 chapters cover, in a logicalprogression, all the elements involved insuccessful gene banking; from planning andcollecting, through processing and testing,to storage and, ultimately, utilization.

Notably, while Seed conservation resultsfrom a conference, good planning andediting have helped avoid the trap of merelyproviding a written record of that meeting.It is neither a practical handbook on gene


RESOURCES

banking nor a text-book on geneticresourcesconservation, seedbiology, etc. Rather,it combines the bestelements of both. For

example, chapters 33 and 34 by MillenniumSeed Bank staff on seed storage providedetailed information on seed bank designand seed packaging. These chaptersupdate and extend text written more thantwo decades ago and benefit greatly fromthe authors’ similar duration of practicalexperience.

Kew Publishing, 2003. ISBN 1842460528.Available from: Kewbooks, SummerfieldHouse, High Street, Brough, Cumbria,CA17 4BX, United Kingdom. Email:[email protected]

Plant Inventory Operations ManualFirst edition, January 2010The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University

This recently published and freely availablereference Manual describes the greatlengths the Arnold Arboretum of HarvardUniversity takes to routinely inventory itsplant collections – a programme thatrepresents the culmination of over 130years of trial, error, and refinement. Unlike astatic museum collection, Harvard’s TreeMuseum is dynamic: the objects grow, theymay go missing, they may drift in location(think of a mass of shrubs advancing asthey layer-in and expand), they may changequickly, they require observation, and theirlabels often wander and need replaced.

These and other realities mean that in orderto have a collection where the plants areaccurately mapped, labeled, identified andmeasured, the landscape must befrequently inventoried and each and everyplant has to be skeptically reviewed. Inwriting the first edition of the Manual, thecuratorial team did not want to simplydescribe current Arboretum procedures.Instead, they embarked upon a thoughtfulreview of their present practices, made anumber of adjustments, and as a result setan even higher standard. The end product,this Manual, is a composite of tried-and-true methods and many new approaches.

Copies of the Manual, can be downloadedfrom: www.arboretum.harvard.edu/plants/pdfs/plant_inventory_operations_manual.pdf

WEBSITES

Center for Plant Conservation (CPC)

The mission of the Center for PlantConservation is to conserve and restore theimperiled native plants of the United Statesto secure them from extinction. The Centermaintains the National Collection ofEndangered Plants, a collection ofcultivated plants and seeds of imperiled,native plants in the United States. TheCenter’s participating institutions work withthese imperiled plants off-site and in thewild. In the greenhouse, institutionscientists conduct horticultural researchand learn how to grow the plants from seedor from cuttings. The Center’s scientiststhen provide plant material for restorationefforts in the wild. Institution scientists alsoassist in monitoring populations in the wild,managing habitat and restoring plants tonative habitats. The National Collection ofEndangered Plants contains plant materialfor more than 700 of the country’s mostimperiled native plants. An importantconservation resource, the Collection is aback-up in case a species becomes extinctor no longer reproduces in the wild. TheCollection provides the material needed forrestoration work for the species. It’s also animportant resource for the scientific studyof plant rarity, rare plant life cycles and rareplant storage and germinationrequirements. CPC is committed tospreading knowledge and informationabout the needs for plant conservation andthe protection of biodiversity.

The CPC website includes a range ofresources focused on plant conservationand ecological restoration aimed atconservation professionals andeducationalists. This includes abibliographic database on topics broadlyrelevant to genetic considerations inecological restoration and a reintroductiondatabase providing current knowledgeabout plant reintroductions. The websiteprovides many useful links to organizationsand resources concerned with nativeplants, endangered plants and plantconservation. More broad based links forplants and plant sciences are alsoincluded.

www.centerforplantconservation.org/

Bioversity International

Bioversity is the world’s largestinternational research organizationdedicated solely to the conservation anduse of agricultural biodiversity.

Bioversity’s website includes a wide rangeof information about the conservation andsustainable use of world’s plant geneticresources. Sections focus on the world’scrop genebanks, which store, maintain andreproduce living samples of the world’shuge diversity of crop varieties, as well asproviding information on the conservationof crop wild relatives and underutilized andneglected plant species. Bioversitymaintains a number of databases withsummary information on ex situ germplasmcollections worldwide. Currently, summaryinformation on more than 5 millionaccessions belonging to more than 20,000species worldwide is available. TheBioversity Species Compendium is asearchable database providing informationabout: seed survival during storage;germination requirements and dormancy;reproductive biology; and pests anddiseases.

The website also provides links to theSystem-wide Information Network forGenetic Resources (SINGER), which is thegenetic resources information exchangenetwork of the centres of the ConsultativeGroup on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR) and to the Europeanplant genetic resource catalogue,EURISCO, which collects data from thenational plant genetic resource inventoriesand provides access to ex situ plantgenetic resource information in Europe.

www.bioversityinternational.org

Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog

This Blog was set up by Luigi Guarino andJeremy Cherfas, united by their passion foragricultural biodiversity and the internet.Their aim is to collect in one place anythingthey find on the internet that relatessomehow to the notion of agriculturalbiodiversity. Articles and comments coverissues related to the conservation and useof plant genetic resources in the broadestsense, often including information relevantto the conservation of wild plants.

http://agro.biodiver.se/



Formal Board Resolution or other form of approval Please Tickfrom relevant governing bodies (e.g. universityauthorities, local, regional or national government

Informal E.g. by Director/Senior staff.

International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in ConservationRegistration Form

Please register your contributions to the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation

Name of Institution

Name of responsibleperson

Position

Date ofRegistration

Date

Address

Type of Registration

BGCI would welcome copies of any formal resolution, motion or other form of endorsement.

Declaration

This institution welcomes the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation as a global framework for thedevelopment of institutional policies and programmes in plant conservation for botanic gardens.

Without imposing any obligations or restrictions (legal or otherwise) on the policies or activities of thisinstitution/organisation, we commit ourselves to working to achieve the objectives and targets of theInternational Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation.

Please sign and detach this registration form and send it to The Secretary General, Botanic Gardens ConservationInternational, Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3BW, U.K.

Thank you for registering with the International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation.

Please keep a duplicate copy of this form for your records.

Email

Signed

Established in 1987,BGCI links more than 500botanic gardens andconservation organizationsin 115 countries, workingtogether to savePLANTS FOR THE PLANET.

BGCI’s INSTITUTION members receive numerous benefits:• Opportunities for involvement in joint conservation and education projects• Tools and opportunities to influence global conservation policy and action• Botanic Garden Management Resource Pack (upon joining)*• Regular publications:

- Cuttings – newsletter on botanic gardens and plant conservation (2 per year)- BGjournal – an international journal for botanic gardens (2 per year)- Roots - Environmental Education Review (2 per year)- A wide range of publications and special reports

• Invitations to BGCI congresses and discounts on registration fees• BGCI technical support and advisory services

• Regular publications:- Cuttings – newsletter on botanic gardens and plant conservation (2 per year)- BGjournal - an international journal for botanic gardens (2 per year)- Roots - Environmental Education Review (2 per year)

• Invitations to BGCI congresses and discounts on registration fees

J Conservation donor (BGjournal, Roots and Cuttings reports and more) 250 400 350K Associate member (Cuttings and BGjournal) 40 65 50L Associate member (Cuttings and Roots) 40 65 50M Friend (Cuttings) available through online subscription only (www.bgci.org) 10 15 15

Institution Membership £ Stlg US $ € Euros

Individual Membership £ Stlg US $ € Euros

How to join Botanic Gardens Conservation Internationaland help us to save plants from extinction

INDIVIDUAL members and donorssupport BGCI’s global network forplant conservation, and areconnected to it through ourpublications and events.Membership categories include:

Corporate Membership is available; please contact BGCI at [email protected] for further details.

*Contents of the Botanic Garden Management Resource Pack include: Darwin Technical Manual for Botanic Gardens, A Handbook for Botanic Gardens on theReintroduction of Plants to the Wild, BGjournal - an international journal for botanic gardens (2 past issues), Roots - Environmental Education Review (2 pastissues), The International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation, Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, Environmental Education in Botanic Gardens,additional recent BGCI reports and manuals. BG-Recorder (a computer software package for plant records) available on request.

A BGCI Patron Institution 5000 8000 7500B Institution member (budget more than US$2,250,000) 750 1200 1000C Institution member (budget US$ 1,500,000 - 2,250,000) 500 800 650D Institution member (budget US$ 750,000 - 1,500,000) 350 550 450E Institution member (budget US$ 100,000 - 750,000) 185 300 250F Institution member (budget below US$100,000)* 85 130 115

*Generally applies to institutions in less developed countries

Payment may be made online at www.bgci.org/worldwide/members/, or by cheque (payable to Botanic Gardens Conservation International) orVISA/MasterCard sent to BGCI, Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW, U.K or Fax: +44 (0) 20 8332 5956.

� I wish to apply for BGCI’s INSTITUTION / INDIVIDUAL membership (circle one).

Institution Name (if applicable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contact Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Telephone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E-mail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Membership category (A-M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VISA/Mastercard number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Credit card expiry date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Security code/CSV number (last 3 digits) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Print name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

� I would like to make a donation to BGCI. Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Please clearly state your name (or the name of your institution) on all documentation. Please contact [email protected] for further information.Individuals in the U.S. can make tax-deductible contributions online at www.justgive.org or by contacting [email protected] is a registered charity and company, limited by guarantee, in England and Wales, and in the U.S. as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Botanic GardensConservation International

Descanso House, 199 Kew Road,Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW, U.K.

Tel: +44 (0)20 8332 5953Fax: +44 (0)20 8332 5956E-mail: [email protected]: www.bgci.org

Printed on 100% recycled paper ISSN 1811-8712

This publication is supported by theRufford Maurice Laing Foundation

4th Global BotanicGardens CongressAddressing global change:

a new agenda for botanic gardens

13th - 18th June 2010, Dublin, Ireland

Organised by Botanic Gardens Conservation International & the National Botanic Gardens of IrelandSupported by the Office of Public Works,

Government of Ireland

www.4GBGC.com

Announcement

Documents

Journal of Botanic Gardens Conservation International 7_1.… · role of botanic gardens in exsitu conservation. Are we doing enough and are we doing it well? As Diana Pritchard and