Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T05:48:46.703Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priority areas for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives in South Africa

Part of: Crop Wild Relatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2019

Stephen Holness ,
Michelle Hamer ,
Joana Magos Brehm  and
Domitilla Raimondo
Stephen Holness
Affiliation:
Zoology Department, Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Nelson Mandela University, PO Box 77000, Port Elizabeth, 6031, South Africa
Michelle Hamer*
Affiliation:
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), Private Bag X101, Silverton, Pretoria, 0184, South Africa School of Life & Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X101, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg, KwaZulu-Natal, 3209, South Africa
Joana Magos Brehm
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
Domitilla Raimondo
Affiliation:
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), Private Bag X101, Silverton, Pretoria, 0184, South Africa
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: M.Hamer@sanbi.org.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop wild relatives (CWR) are wild plant taxa that have broader genetic diversity than crops hence they are an excellent source of genes and traits to improve crops. The potential value of CWR for agriculture and the need to protect these plants in their natural habitats (in situ) have been recognized globally. South Africa has the richest temperate flora globally, and the checklist of food and fodder CWR for the country considers 258 taxa to be high priority for conservation. A systematic conservation planning approach was used for spatial prioritization for in situ conservation actions for CWR. Protected areas were categorized on the basis of their CWR richness. The Kruger National Park has the highest number of CWR (66 taxa), but most of these are widespread and common. Fifty-seven protected areas, most of which are in the Western and Eastern Cape fynbos, are irreplaceable for protecting a number of endemic and threatened CWR. For priority CWR not adequately represented in existing protected areas, a spatial plan was developed to identify the smallest area that aligns with existing targets for the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy, that are not transformed in terms of habitat, and that are projected to be climate change resilient. Mechanisms for ensuring uptake of the recommendations for the in situ conservation of CWR have been documented in a National Strategy and Action Plan and these include making information and data available and promoting the inclusion of CWR in current management and monitoring activities.

Keywords

biodiversityclimate changespatial planningprotected areas expansion strategy
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 17 , Special Issue 2: Crop Wild Relatives , April 2019 , pp. 115 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ball, IR and Possingham, HP (2000) MARXAN (V1.8.2). Marine Reserve Design Using Spatially Explicit Annealing, a Manual.Google Scholar
Ball, IR, Possingham, HP and Watts, M (2009) Marxan and Relatives: Software for Spatial Conservation Prioritisation. Spatial Conservation Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–195.Google Scholar
Balmford, A (2003) Conservation planning in the real world: South Africa shows the way. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 435–438.Google Scholar
Brozynska, M, Furtado, A and Henry, RJ (2016) Genomics of crop wild relatives: expanding the gene pool for crop improvement. Plant Biotechnology Journal 14: 1070–1085.Google Scholar
Contreras-Toledo, AR, Cortés-Cruz, MA, Costich, D, Rico-Arce, ML, Magos Brehm, J and Maxted, N (2018) A prioritized crop wild relative inventory for Mexico. Crop Science 58: 1292–1305.Google Scholar
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (2011) Mesozones of South Africa. Pretoria. GIS Dataset.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture, South Africa (1970–2001) Land Type Survey. Available at http://www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/?MIval=landtypes&rb=Landtypes_introduction.Google Scholar
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa (2016) National Strategic Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Crop Wild Relatives in South Africa. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa (2010) National Protected Area Expansion Strategy for South Africa 2008. Priorities for expanding the protected area network for ecological sustainability and climate change adaptation. Available at https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/nationalprotected_areasexpansion_strategy.pdf.Google Scholar
Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa (2015) National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Pretoria, South Africa. Available at https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/nationalbiodiversit_stractandactionplan.pdf.Google Scholar
Department of Environmental Affairs, South Africa (2016) National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
Driver, A, Nel, JL, Snaddon, K, Murray, K, Roux, DJ, Hill, L, Swartz, ER, Manuel, J and Funke, N (2011) Implementation Manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. Pretoria: South Africa: Water Research Commission.Google Scholar
Driver, A, Sink, KJ, Nel, JN, Holness, S, Van Niekerk, L, Daniels, F, Jonas, Z, Majiedt, PA, Harris, L and Maze, K (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: An Assessment of South Africa's Biodiversity and Ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Fielder, H, Brotherton, P, Hosking, J, Hopkins, JJ, Ford-Lloyd, B and Maxted, N (2015) Enhancing the conservation of crop wild relatives in England. PLoS ONE 10: e0130804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130804.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, H (2013) The National Crop Wild Relative Strategy Report for Finland. MTT Report 121, Jokioinen, Finland.Google Scholar
Gallo, JA, Pasquini, L, Reyers, B and Cowling, RM (2009) The role of private conservation areas in biodiversity representation and target achievement within the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Biological Conservation, 142: 446–454.Google Scholar
Geoterraimage (2014) 2013–14 South African National Landcover Dataset, © Geoterraimage – 2014.Google Scholar
Germishuizen, G, Meyer, NL, Steenkamp, Y and Keith, M (eds) (2006) A Checklist of South African Plants. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report 41. Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Harlan, JR and de Wet, JMJ (1971) Towards a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxon 20: 509–517.Google Scholar
Heywood, V, Casas, A, Ford-Lloyd, B, Kell, S and Maxted, N (2007) Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 121: 245–255.Google Scholar
Hunter, D, Maxted, N, Heywood, V, Kell, S and Borelli, T (2012) Protected areas and the challenge of conserving crop wild relatives. Parks 18: 87–97.Google Scholar
Iriondo, JM, Maxted, N, Kell, SP, Ford-Lloyd, BV, Lara-Romero, C, Labokas, J and Magos Brehm, J (2012) Identifying quality standards for genetic reserve conservation of CWR. In: Maxted, N, Dulloo, ME, Ford-Lloyd, BV, Frese, L, Iriondo, JM and Pinheiro de Carvalho, MAA (eds) Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Securing the Diversity of Crop Wild Relatives and Landraces. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 72–77.Google Scholar
IUCN (2001) IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. IUCN Species Survival Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Jewitt, D, Goodman, PS, Erasmus, BF, O'Connor, TG and Witkowski, ET (2015) Systematic land-cover change in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: implications for biodiversity. South African Journal of Science 111: 01–09.Google Scholar
Kell, S, Qin, H, Chen, B, Ford-Lloyd, B, Wei, W, Kang, D and Maxted, N (2015) China's crop wild relatives: diversity for agriculture and food security. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 209: 138–154.Google Scholar
Knight, AT, Driver, A, Cowling, RM, Maze, K, Desmet, PG, Lombard, AT, Rouget, M, Botha, MA, Boshoff, AF, Castley, J and Goodman, PS (2006) Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa. Conservation Biology 20: 739–750.Google Scholar
Kukkala, AS and Moilanen, A (2013) Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biological Reviews 88: 443–464.Google Scholar
Magos Brehm, J, Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, BV and Martins-Loução, MA (2008) National inventories of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants: case-study for Portugal. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55: 779–796.Google Scholar
Magos Brehm, J, Saifan, S, Taifour, H, Abulaila, K, Al-Assaf, A, El-Oqlah, A, Al-Sheyab, F, Bani-Hani, R, Ghazanfar, S, Haddad, N, Shibli, R, Taleb, TA, Ali, B and Maxted, N (2016) Crop wild relatives, a priority in Jordan? Developing a national strategy for the conservation of plant diversity in Jordan using a participatory approach. In: Maxted, N, Dulloo, ME and Ford-Lloyd, BV (eds) Enhancing Crop Genepool Use: Capturing Wild Relative and Landrace Diversity for Crop Improvement. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 172–188.Google Scholar
Margules, CR and Pressey, RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405: 243–253.Google Scholar
Maxted, N and Kell, S (2009) Establishment of a Network for the In Situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives: Status and Needs. Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, BV and Hawkes, JG (1997) Plant Genetic Conservation: The In Situ Approach. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Maxted, N, Ford-Lloyd, BV, Jury, SL, Kell, SP and Scholten, MA (2006) Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 2673–2685.Google Scholar
Mittermeier, RA, Robles Gil, P, Hoffmann, M, Pilgrim, J, Brooks, T, Mittermeier, CG, Lamoreux, J and da Fonseca, GAB (2004) Hotspots Revisited: Earth's Biologically Richest and Most Endangered Ecoregions. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Ng'uni, D, Munkombwe, G, Mwile, G, Dulloo, E, Thormann, I, Gaisberger, H, Maxted, N, Magos Brehm, J and Kell, S (2017) Technical background document to the National Strategic Action Plan for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Cop Wild Relatives in Zambia. Zambia: Ministry of Agriculture. Available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/VYZZFF, Harvard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
Parra-Quijano, M, Draper, D, Torres, E and Iriondo, JM (2008) Ecogeographical Representativeness in Crop Wild Relative Ex Situ Collections. Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 249–273.Google Scholar
Pasquini, L, Cowling, RM, Twyman, C and Wainwright, J (2010) Devising appropriate policies and instruments in support of private conservation areas: lessons learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa. Conservation Biology 24: 470–478.Google Scholar
Raimondo, D (2011) The red list of South African plants – a global first. South African Journal of Science 107, Art. #653, 2 pp.Google Scholar
Raimondo, D (ed.) (2015) South Africa's Strategy for Plant Conservation. Pretoria, South Africa: South African National Biodiversity Institute and the Botanical Society of South Africa.Google Scholar
Raimondo, D, Staden, LV, Foden, W, Victor, JE, Helme, NA, Turner, RC, Kamundi, DA and Manyama, PA (2009) Red List of South African Plants. Pretoria, South Africa: South African National Biodiversity Institute.Google Scholar
Rubio Teso, ML, Torres, E, Parra-Quijano, M, de la Rosa, L, Fajardo, J and Iriondo, JM (2017) National inventory and prioritization of crop wild relatives in Spain. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 65: 1237–1253.Google Scholar
Smith, RJ (2004) Conservation Land Use Zoning (CLUZ) Software. Canterbury, UK: Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology. Available at http://wwwmosaic%conscrvation (accessed 28 January 2010).Google Scholar
Sotelo, H (2017) A global database for the distributions of crop wild relatives. Version 1.8. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). Occurrence dataset. Available at https://doi.org/10.15468/jyrthk (accessed via GBIF.org 6 August 2017).Google Scholar
South African Government (2004) National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). Available at https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nema_amendment_act10_0.pdf.Google Scholar
South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), Agricultural Research Council (ARC) and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2017) CWR checklist and priority taxa of South Africa. doi: 10.7910/DVN/LJWKBN, Harvard Dataverse, V1.Google Scholar
Taylor, NG, Kell, SP, Holubec, V, Parra-Quijano, M, Chobot, K and Maxted, N (2017) A systematic conservation strategy for crop wild relatives in the Czech Republic. Diversity and Distributions 23: 448–462.Google Scholar
Whitlock, R, Hipperson, H, Thompson, DBA, Butlin, RK and Burke, T (2016) Consequences of in-situ strategies for the conservation of plant genetic diversity. Biological Conservation 203: 134–142.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Holness et al. supplementary material

Holness et al. supplementary material 1

Download Holness et al. supplementary material(File)
File 63.9 KB