Summary Although often not collected specifically for the purposes of conservation, herbarium specimens offer sufficient information to reconstruct parameters that are needed to designate a species as ‘at‐risk’ of extinction. While such designations should prompt quick and efficient legal action towards species recovery, such action often lags far behind and is mired in bureaucratic procedure. The increase in online digitization of natural history collections has now led to a surge in the number new studies on the uses of machine learning. These repositories of species occurrences are now equipped with advances that allow for the identification of rare species. The increase in attention devoted to estimating the scope and severity of the threats that lead to the decline of such species will increase our ability to mitigate these threats and reverse the declines, overcoming a current barrier to the recovery of many threatened plant species. Thus far, collected specimens have been used to fill gaps in systematics, range extent, and past genetic diversity. We find that they also offer material with which it is possible to foster species recovery, ecosystem restoration, and de‐extinction, and these elements should be used in conjunction with machine learning and citizen science initiatives to mobilize as large a force as possible to counter current extinction trends.
Habitat monitoring in Europe is regulated by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive, which suggests the use of typical species to habitat conservation status. Yet, the Directive uses the term “typical” species but does not provide a definition, either for its use in reporting or for its use in impact assessments. To address the issue, an online workshop was organized by the Italian Society for Vegetation Science (SISV) to shed light on the diversity of perspectives regarding the different concepts of typical species, and to discuss the possible implications for habitat monitoring. To this aim, we inquired 73 people with a very different degree of expertise in the field of vegetation science by means of a tailored survey composed of six questions. We analysed the data using Pearson's Chi-squared test to verify that the answers diverged from a random distribution and checked the effect of the degree of experience of the surveyees on the results. We found that most of the surveyees agreed on the use of the phytosociological method for habitat monitoring and of the diagnostic and characteristic species to evaluate the structural and functional conservation status of habitats. With this contribution, we shed light on the meaning of “typical” species in the context of habitat monitoring.
a università degli studi roma tre facoltà di scienza matematiche fisiche e naturali, roma, italy; b Department of earth and environmental sciences, università degli studi di Pavia, Pavia, italy; c università di camerino, Barisciano, italy; d università del salento, lecce, italy; e ente Parco nazionale d'abruzzo lazio e molise, Pescasseroli, italy; f università degli studi di sassari, sassari, italy; g università degli studi di Palermo, Palermo, italy; h Dip. scienze della Vita, siena, italy; i scienze della terra e dell'ambiente -sez. ecologia del territorio, Pavia university, Pavia, italy; j Department of Botanical sciences, university of cagliari, cagliari, italy; k museo di storia naturale di milano, sezione di Botanica, milano, italy; l università degli studi di siena, siena, italy; m università degli studi di roma la sapienza, roma, italy; n guardie giurate ecologiche Volontarie, reggio emilia, italy; o università degli studi di ferrara, ferrara, italy; p università degli studi dell'insubria, Varese, italy; q Department of Biological, geological and environmental sciences, university of Bologna, Bologna, italy; r museo orto Botanico, università degli studi di Bari "aldo moro", Bari, italy; s università degli studi di Pisa, Pisa, italy; t DBsf, università degli studi dell'insubria, Varese, italy; u native flora centre of the lombardy region, galbiate, lecco, italy; v Parco nazionale della majella, sulmona, italy; w Dipartimento di scienze dell'ambiente e del territorio e di scienze della terra, università degli studi di milano -Bicocca, milano, italy; x comunità montana alta Valtellina, Bormio, sondrio, italy; y centro conservazione Biodiversità (ccB), Dipartimento di scienze Botaniche, università degli studi di cagliari, cagliari, italy; z oliena, nuoro, italy; aa centro ricerche floristiche dell'appennino, università di camerino -Parco nazionale del gran sasso e monti della laga), Barisciano, l'aquila, italy; ab isPra-istituto superiore per la protezione e la ricerca ambientale, Dip. Bio, roma, italy; ac Dipartimento di scienze Botaniche, università degli studi di cagliari, cagliari, italy; ad università di Pisa, Pisa, italy; ae università degli studi di modena e reggio emilia, modena, italy; af liceo scientifico statale "g. ferraris", Varese, italy; ag agenzia forestas, cagliari, italy; ah tuscia germplasm Bank, tuscia university, Viterbo, italy; ai majella national Park, sulmona, italy; aj ente Parco nazionale della majella, sulmona, l'aquila, italy; ak giardino Botanico gole del sagittario, anversa degli abruzzi, l'aquila, italy; al università di Palermo Diiaa, Palermo, italy; am agricultural, food and forest sciences, university of Palermo, Palermo, italy; an Dipartimento di Biologia vegetale, sapienza università di roma, rome, italy; ao Dipartimento di scienze Botaniche, ecologiche e geologiche, università degli studi di sassari, sassari, italy; ap Veneto agricoltura, legnaro, italy; aq evolutionary Biology -laboratories of Botany, university of florence, florence, italy; ar Dipartimento di Biologia, u...
Seventeen European endemic plant species were considered extinct but improved taxonomic and distribution knowledge, as well as ex situ collecting activities, brought them out of the extinct status. These species have been now reported into a conservation framework that may promote legal protection, in situ and ex situ conservation.
Herbaria may represent remarkable sources of viable diaspores for recovering lost genetic variation and extinct plant species, but the application of rewilding extinct species using these collections has not been explored in detail. De‐extinction in plants may be achieved by germinating viable diaspores or culturing tissues preserved in herbarium specimens. Germination of old diaspores (fruits, seeds, spores) preserved in sub‐optimal uncontrolled storage conditions demonstrates that the recovery of extinct plants from herbarium specimens may be possible. Plant de‐extinction via herbarium specimens relies on the availability of samples containing viable diaspores, and on the inclination of curators and the conservation community to use such material for this purpose. We developed an internet‐based survey to assess (i) whether the scientific community would consent to the use of herbarium specimens of extinct species to attempt de‐extinction, and (ii) the limitations of removing diaspores from specimens. Despite the risk of potential damages to valuable specimens from historical collections when harvesting diaspores, a consensus for using specimens of extinct plant species emerged. Most respondents would permit the collection of a low number of diaspores, preferably from duplicate specimens and only if the integrity of the specimen is preserved. These considerations would be more restrictive for type specimens and those of historical value. These results help to formalise a decision framework for the grant and use of material from natural history collections and a pragmatic approach to attempt to resurrect extinct species from herbarium specimens.
The Mediterranean basin has been a refugium for relict plant taxa and native laurophyllic forests. The Latium coasts and, especially, the Antica Lavinium site, host relict forest communities, whose natural importance is enriched by their cultural value. Here, we aim at investigating the ecological framework, cultural and historical values, and management over time, of relict communities that have Laurus nobilis and Celtis australis as their priority habitats. To achieve this, we performed vegetation surveys and we conducted statistical analyses (PCA, NMDS). Among the 45 vegetation surveys, 25 were characterized by the two target species. The PCA analysis highlighted how the L. nobilis formations and the mixed formations with C. australis present some differences but are not sufficient to describe different coenosis. The comparison among similar forests in central and southern Italy confirmed the wide coenological amplitude of L. nobilis with respect to other laurophyllic species. Antica Lavinium has an overall good preservation of laurel forest formations, but also of mixed formation with C. australis. In the area, historical, cultural, and natural characteristics mutually contributed to the development of human civilizations and plant communities, highlighting their deep linkage.
International databases and data aggregators on species conservation status are powerful tools supporting the efforts of conservation biologists and practitioners in reducing the loss of biodiversity. However, out-of-date information and poor interoperability of databases can hamper conservation of highly threatened species or in extreme cases can result in their removal from conservation frameworks.Lack of common standards for database updates, slow update timing and incongruencies among datasets result in confusing information that prevent proper conservation prioritisation and actions. A simple survey to update and solve incongruencies between the BGCI PlantSearch Database, the IUCN Red List and other datasets resulted in a change of status of sixteen plant species, including the "rehabilitation" of fourteen species thought to be extinct. Full TextThere are different ways a species previously thought to be extinct can be 'rehabilitated' or removed from the list of extinct taxa. First, it can be rediscovered in its native range as part of increased search efforts or simply by chance (1); second, it can be identi ed as a synonym with an extant species as a result of improved taxonomic knowledge (2); third it can be found alive in an ex situ facility, which allows for the species to be considered extinct in the wild (EW), according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Categories and Criteria (3).The latter two cases are seen as non-genuine status changes, though the consequences for rehabilitated species can be extremely important: while extinct species are excluded from conservation frameworks, rehabilitated species can be the subject of conservation management plans (4). Information on the conservation status of extinct, extinct in the wild and possibly extinct species should therefore be as accurate as possible to avoid weakening our conservation efforts or directing them to the wrong targets.Large databases such as the IUCN Species Information Service, PlantSearch, GBIF, etc. are very useful data aggregators providing important data for developing conservation programmes. However, most databases are characterised by a slow information turnover (e.g., red lists are revised every ten years; 3) or updates are made by reporting data from a source to another, with errors and inaccuracies that are often maintained over long periods (5, 6,7). Moreover, inconsistencies among data sources can produce incongruencies in a species' conservation status. For instance, in the IUCN Red List 2021, three species (Astragalus nitidi orus Jiménez Mun. & Pau, Euphrasia mendoncae Samp. = Euphrasia minima DC., Ornithogalum visianicum ex Vis.= Loncomelos visianicum (Tomm. ex Vis.) Speta) out of four listed as extinct for Europe are currently extant, according to recent updates (2). The abovementioned issues hamper our ability to plan and prioritise conservation actions (both in situ and ex situ). Species that were declared extinct or extinct in the wild or are very close to extinction are particularly affe...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.