Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ ConservationFINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN

Living Collections of Botanic

Gardens as a Means of

Ex Situ Conservation- A Case Study on African Violets

Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto


Premises

• up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered

• in situ conservation is the norm, but...

• GSPC target VIII

• ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs

• advantages and disadvantages have been brought up


- already existing resource

- high species diversity: 80,000 out of 300,000

- multiple use: research, education, public outreach, recreation

• pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:


- already existing resource - expensive maintenance

- high species diversity: 80,000 out of 300,000

- low genetic diversity: few accessions, many clones

- multiple use: research, education, public outreach, recreation

- curatorial problems: poor record keeping, poor origin data, misidentifications

- genetic integrity at risk (garden origins, hybridisation)

- long-term security uncertain

• pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:


...premises

• up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered

• in situ conservation is the norm, but...

• GSPC target VIII

• ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs

• advantages and disadvantages have been brought up

• BUT: hardly any analyses made!


Aims• to evaluate and develop methods of

evaluation• to answer the following questions:

1. is species diversity high but genetic diversity low?

2. do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation?

3. is maintenance possible?4. is genetic integrity at risk?5. is multiple use a reality?


Material & Methods

• African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.)


Material & Methods

S. groteiS. diplotricha


Material & Methods

• African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.)

• 4 of 5 most important Saintpaulia collections: UPP, ED, MEI, HKI

• study of collections and collection databases

• cross-check of accession data

• assessment of quality of origin data

• evaluation of maintenance & display


Preliminary results

1. Is species diversity high?– of 30 known taxa, 27 existed in the studied

gardens (+ one as seeds) YES!


Preliminary results

2. Is genetic diversity low?– number of accessions per sp. per garden

varied: 1 – 33– recommended minimum is 50 (-100)– total number of accessions: 183– recommended minimum would be 1,500 YES!

BUT:– clonal accessions only few


Preliminary resultsno. of wild accessions

share of uniques

HKI 83 76 %

UPP 26 27 %

MEI 35 83 %

ED 39 82 %


Preliminary results

3. Do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation?– 2 misidentifactions among 183 accessions– 26 accessions lacked data on origin, 3 had

only ”wild-collected”, all others at least region of origin

– HKI had ”some confusions”, ED had one, others none

NO!


Preliminary results

4. Genetic itegrity at risk?– mostly wild-collected accessions: human-

induced hybrids not possible– origin data mostly good

• we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks


• CLASS 1: the exact collection site, down to the level of population/stand, can be found on the basis of the information, e.g.: – Kenya, Kilifi District, Kacharoni, 0328 S, 03945 E, 85 m, lithophyte on

limestone rocks, in shade of riverine forest. Coll. B. Bytebier 28.09.1993, coll. number 107.

• CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information, e.g.: – Tanzania, Morogoro, Nguru Mts., Kanga F.R., 1100 m. Coll. T. Pocs.

• CLASS 3: the region, district, or mountain area of the collection site known, e.g.:– Tanzania, Lushoto District, East Usambara Mts. Coll. S. Mather, coll.

number 2.

• CLASS 4: accession registered as collected from the wild, but site data lacking, e.g.:– Tanzania. Coll. S. Mather.

• CLASS 5: no origin data, but accession can be determined as a certain species (i.e., not a cultivar)


Preliminary results

4. Genetic itegrity at risk?– mostly wild-collected accessions– origin data mostly good

• we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks• variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information


Preliminary results

4. Genetic itegrity at risk?– mostly wild-collected accessions– origin data mostly good

• we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks• variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1

– Saintpaulia easy to propagate from cuttings NO!


Preliminary results

5. Is maintenance possible?– one pot needs 121 cm2

– 30 taxa 50 pots 121 cm2 = c. 18 m2

– not susceptible to pests, easy to grow– fallen & rooting leaves, and spontaneous

seedlings a small problem YES!


Preliminary results

6. Is multiple use a reality?– showy display in HKI– research in HKI and ED– additional info on conservation nowhere NO!


Conclusions

1. Expected drawbacks not too severe, except for lack of genetic diversity.

2. Expected benefits partly true, partly not.

3. Results probably depend on plant group.

4. Spatial requirements can be solved through networking.



Conclusions

5. The evaluation methods used are a good base, but phylogenetics and population genetics would refine the results.

and6. Analyses of the real value of live

collections should be continued and collections developed according to results


Thank you!

Documents

Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto