Presentation given by Elena Fiorino, Imke Thormann and Ehsan Dullo from Bioversity International on the closing day of the International Horticultural Congress 2014. In their presentation they tackle questions such as 'Why is in situ conservation of crop wild relatives important?' and 'How can we develop in situ conservation strategies?' Watch this video to learn more about crop wild relatives and why they are the cornerstone of agriculture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah7RruMZ9CU

1. Assessing trends in genetic diversity to inform in
situ conservation strategies for crop wild relatives
Thormann I, Fiorino E, Dulloo ME
4th International Symposium on Plant Genetic Resources: Genetic Resources for Climate Change at 29th
International Horticultural Congress, 17 - 22 August 2014, Brisbane, Australia

2. 2
Crop wild relatives (CWR)
Crop wild relatives are increasingly important for present
and future agricultural development, as they
provide adapted genes and traits for crop
improvement, even more so under changing climate.
(Hajjar and Hodgkin 2007; Maxted et al. 2012, McCouch, 2013; Dempewolf et al, 2014, etc)

3. 3
Why is in situ conservation of crop wild relatives
important?
• To allow for crop wild relatives populations to continue to
evolve in their natural habitats and adapt to changing
environmental conditions;
• To capture the evolving traits in crop wild relatives that might
be useful for plant breeders and farmer for current and future
use

4. 4
Developing in situ conservation strategies
• Overview of diversity and current conservation/threat status
• Prior knowledge about population structure, demography,
distribution of genetic diversity in target species across their
areas of occurrence;
• Access to these information is important to develop in situ
conservation strategies management plans and Strategic
Action Plans
• Inform policymakers of what conservation interventions are
required for effective management and monitoring of target
populations

5. 5
Assessing and monitoring trends and loss in
genetic diversity
• Requires knowledge about existing diversity
• Temporal dimension: at least 3 data points are needed or
historical information known
• Potential sources:
Plant germplasm collections
can provide past snapshots
of diversity and data for
re-collection for assessment
of current diversity
• One example: Bioversity International’s
collecting missions database
http://bioversity.github.io/geosite/

6. • 1000 collecting trips between 1975 and 2012
• 226,618 samples collected, of which ca. 85% between 1975-
6
Bioversity International collecting missions
database
1995
• 27% of collected samples are
wild species
• 25% of trips collected
only wild species
• Passport data and collecting
mission reports for most
samples available

7. 7
Crop wild relatives’ samples in Bioversity
International’s Collecting Database
• 60,000 (27%) of collected
samples are wild species
collected from 115 different
countries
• 73% of wild samples are geo-referenced
• Numerous examples of
– groups of species collected
from the same country
– single species collected from
several countries
53.20%
7.60%
10.40%
7.60%
9.40%
11.80%
Forages Cereals Legumes
Roots and Tubers Vegetables Others

8. 8
CWR samples in Bioversity International’s Collecting
Missions Database
Group of species collected from same country: forage legumes in Syria
Note: shows only species for which more than 50 geo-referenced samples were collected during a collecting trip

9. 9
CWR samples in Bioversity International’s Collecting
Missions Database
Single species collected from several countries: Prosopis africana in Africa
Note: shows only species for which more than 50 geo-referenced samples were collected during a collecting trip

10. 10
Potential applications
Fills data gap for CWR diversity assessment studies
Unique link between original passport data, additional collecting
documentation and genebank accession numbers allows to:
• Identify coherent set of samples/sites collected at the same
time/way (historic snapshot of diversity)
• Re-visit old collecting sites and re-sample CWR
• Retrieve original material in genebanks
• Assess temporal variation in genetic diversity and current
vulnerability and threat
• Inform conservation actions
• Comparative studies among species and different eco-geographic
realities
• Investigate effects of climate change
Original
passport data
corresponding
genebank
accession
original
collecting
documentation
Example
• No changes in varietal diversity at national level
• Significant shift in adaptive traits: shorter life cycle, reduction in plant
and spike size

11. 11
Successful implementation: re-collection of barley in
Jordan
• In 2012 re-visited the sites where wild barley
and LRs were collected in 1981
– Verified collecting sites based on
coordinates and location description
– Re-collected wild barley from 32 old sites
– Collecting of wild barley samples also from
additional sites in reserves
– Re-collected landraces from 26 old sites
Verification with Google earth and gazetteers

12. 12
Tracking of 1981 samples: distribution and conservation
of samples in genebanks
ICARDA
Syria
NordGen
Sweden
NCARE
Jordan
July 1982
LR in1981; CWR in 1982; about 50-60 g/acc
repatriation after 1996;
100 seeds/acc?
R = 1- 2
LR in 1985 or 1996;
CWR in 1994. R = 2 for
some CWR
R = 0
never integrated in
collection, kept in freezers
R = 0
R = regeneration or multiplication cycles
LR = landrace
CWR = crop wild relative
IPK
Germany
transfer in
2012
Jordan?
??

13. 13
Common garden in IPK – growing season 2013
• Growing season 2013
• Wild barley and landrace samples from 1981
and 2012 + 5 control accessions
• Leaf tissue and phenotypic trait data collection
on 16 individuals per accession

14. 14
Preliminary results from re-collecting trip and common
garden
• In most sites wild barley populations are still there, however
– at the Eastern border of the collecting area some sites have become too dry
(both for wild barley and landraces)
– Small residual populations where barley cultivation is abandoned due to
land use change or change from cereal cultivation to orchards
– Barley still growing on field margins of barley fields like in 1981
• Wild barley populations thrive better in disturbed habitats, significantly smaller
in undisturbed habitats.
• Wild barley populations are taller and have more tillers in 1981 compared to
2012
• Growth habit is prevalently prostrate in 1981 while intermediate growth habit
dominates in 2012 samples.
• No significant difference in days to heading and maturity
• Molecular markers studies on all the samples and accessions are currently
ongoing

15. Thank you