Ex Situ Conservation Priorities for the Wild Relatives of Potato (Solanum L. Section Petota)

Abstract

Crop wild relatives have a long history of use in potato breeding, particularly for pest and disease resistance, and are expected to be increasingly used in the search for tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Their current and future use in crop improvement depends on their availability in ex situ germplasm collections. As these plants are impacted in the wild by habitat destruction and climate change, actions to ensure their conservation ex situ become ever more urgent. We analyzed the state of ex situ conservation of 73 of the closest wild relatives of potato (Solanum section Petota) with the aim of establishing priorities for further collecting to fill important gaps in germplasm collections. A total of 32 species (43.8%), were assigned high priority for further collecting due to severe gaps in their ex situ collections. Such gaps are most pronounced in the geographic center of diversity of the wild relatives in Peru. A total of 20 and 18 species were assessed as medium and low priority for further collecting, respectively, with only three species determined to be sufficiently represented currently. Priorities for further collecting include: (i) species completely lacking representation in germplasm collections; (ii) other high priority taxa, with geographic emphasis on the center of species diversity; (iii) medium priority species. Such collecting efforts combined with further emphasis on improving ex situ conservation technologies and methods, performing genotypic and phenotypic characterization of wild relative diversity, monitoring wild populations in situ, and making conserved wild relatives and their associated data accessible to the global research community, represent key steps in ensuring the long-term availability of the wild genetic resources of this important crop.

Geographic analysis of Red List Rhododendron (Ericaceae) taxa by country of origin identifies priorities for ex situ conservation

“…The fifth analysis involved derivation of a 'not in cultivation' score using a series of nine 'not in cultivation' factors, as absence of Red List taxa from collections is also a driver of conservation priorities (Farnsworth et al 2006, Castaneda-Alvarez et al 2015. Eight of these factors had a similar form to the Red List analysis and were the numbers and percentages of taxa 'not in cultivation' for Red List taxa, endemic Red List taxa, Data Deficient taxa, and endemic Data Deficient taxa.…”

“…This process appears to be sufficient for small genera comprised of similar life forms, but does not have a fine enough resolution for large genera of wide distribution and multiple life forms, where there may be hundreds of taxa in any one Red List category. In these genera additional factors such as taxonomic groupings, geographic representation, endemism and centres of diversity (Farnsworth et al 2006, Castaneda-Alvarez et al 2015, Cavendar et al 2015, can be used to identify key groups of taxa. Rhododendron L. (Ericaceae) is one such large genus (of about 1 215 taxa) in which Gibbs et al (2011) and Argent (2015) Red Listed 715 taxa .…”

Helping nature help us: Transforming disaster risk reduction through ecosystem management

“…There are currently more and more inventories of CWR, and priority species or taxa for exsitu and/or in-situ conservation are being Figure 12. Examples of the role of protected areas in mitigating risks from drought and wildfire (Source: Dudley et al, 2015) identified and documented (Vincent et al, 2013;Castañeda-Álvarez et al, 2015).…”

Analysis of geographic and taxonomic groups informs conservation of Rhododendron subgenus Vireya (Ericaceae)

“…the broad range of taxa in Schistanthe: euvireya) vs less common characters (e.g. the few taxa in Siphonovireya) (Paton 2009, Kozlowski et al 2012, Castañeda-Álvarez et al 2015. Such comparison hinges on the robustness of the sections, whereby small groups that are distinct could merit a high priority for conservation.…”

“…the 201 vireya taxa that were Red Listed 4 , or the 60 taxa assessed as Vulnerable. While the Red List categories create an initial hierarchy, other factors such as geographic hotspots, endemism and taxonomic distinctiveness have also been used to shape priorities (Farnsworth et al 2006, Kozlowski et al 2012, Castañeda-Álvarez et al 2015, Cavender et al 2015. Identifying taxonomic distinctiveness can be problematic in 'big genera' because of their complex taxonomic structures with many subgroups, large numbers of taxonomic queries, frequent hybridisation and active speciation (Crutwell 1988, Frodin 2004, Ennos et al 2005, Milne et al 2010, Argent 2015; a comprehensive taxonomy is required to underpin any conservation assessment that considers taxonomic groups.…”